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/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed May 30 16:48:16 CEST 2007
On May 30, 2007, at 4:33 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 12:08 -0700, David Williamson wrote: >> I wasn't going to post again today to this list, but I cannot let >> blatantly incorrect statements go by. PI is not hard to get, >> although >> your experience may vary by region. My org holds a PI /48, and it >> took me 2 days of duration and ten minutes of effort to receive it. >> That's nearly trivial, in my book. > > If you want to endorse PI for "private" use please also consider > that it > leaves blocks wide open to abuse. Separate ULA-C space can easily be > filtered, but how do you easily prevent hijacking of unannounced > PI-prefixes should such private blocks become as commonplace as > rfc1918-space? How do you prevent it now, in IPv4 ? (I know several companies with addressable blocks for internal use, and so I suspect that this is not that rare.) Regards Marshall > > //per > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]