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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/

[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

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

Anton Rieger inrin at jikken.de
Sat Oct 5 21:24:13 CEST 2019

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:10:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Uh, no.  The IETF decides what it is, and if they say it's private
>(like they did with RFC1918), then it is.
>
>If they say it's "reserved", it's not up for grabs (neither for the RIRs
>not for any private deployment either).
>
>"Not RIR space" does not make it "private", there are at least 3 different
>states.

Best examples are 1.1.1.1 and 5.5.5.5

Anton

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]