This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Tue May 29 15:11:02 CEST 2007
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Roger Jørgensen > 1.) get ula-central and know for sure we won´t get into this issue ever again. > >2.) administrate our own local version of ULA-central for the organization we co-operate with > >3.) get RIR-space with all the add on administration and documentation... > For me, only option 1.) is a real option, the other two are just > work-around since we don´t need global routing of the address space in > question. The RIRs already provide globally unique address space. This is what you want. Both ULA-C and the RIRs do not guarantee global routability anyway. ULA-L is never globally unique, so basically there is no such thing as "Unique Locally Assigned" addresses. Q: Is it correct that you can get a /26 IPv4 PA block, but you can't get a /96 IPv6 PA block? Why is that? Cheers, J
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]