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 ]
Stephen Sprunk
stephen at sprunk.org
Wed May 30 16:20:59 CEST 2007
Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> > Agree, in ARIN region is not difficult to get, but in other two regions > (LACNIC and RIPE NCC) is still impossible. > > However more difference to point to is that using PI for a function > such as the one covered by ULA-Central is wasting space. How is using a PI /48 any more or less wasteful than a ULA-C /48? If anything, there is less ULA space (currently /7) available than PI space (currently /3) so we should be more concerned about waste in ULA land. Creating a new type of address space for "private" use just because some companies are too lazy to figure out how to configure their firewalls (which don't even exist yet) is not good engineering. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
- 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 ]