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 ]
Kevin Kargel
kkargel at polartel.com
Wed May 30 20:43:19 CEST 2007
I will agree with this.. though I might have phrased it differently. Rather than mandate how organizations must use portions of their allocations, why not just let the whole thing be publicly routable? Then if an organization decides to use part of their allocation for private routing they can choose a block and quantity appropriate for their needs. Just as today we block private addresses at the network edge, we can continue to do so for IPv6. IPv6 is bigger, but it's not magic.. I have access lists in place on my routers to prevent private IP routing and IP spoofing.. I assume (yeah, I know) that most responsible sysadmin's do the same. I really don't understand the controversy over or need for ULA-C. Feel free to honestly educate me. I like feeling educated. Kevin :$s/worry/happy/g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:21 AM > To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es; ARIN PPML; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ]