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/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

David Kessens david.kessens at nsn.com
Wed Feb 3 00:43:48 CET 2010

Gert,

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:36:10PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> Given the number of attendees, the chances for address collisions with
> at least one participant's home network can be assumed to be near 100%.

So use NAT'ed public IPv4 addresses ? (yuk!)

But seriously, we will be living in this ugly world not long from now,
whether we like it or not. Why not try it out before it will be forced
on us?

At least this time you can relatively easy bypass the NAT by using IPv6
and there is still time to find out about the worst problems like you
mention above and make it work.

David Kessens
---

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RFC 1918 in "production networks" (was IPv6 experiments at future RIPE Meetings)

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]