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]/
[members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] desperate for ipv4 much?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
president at ukraine.su
Fri Jul 27 13:20:10 CEST 2012
It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;) 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco написав(ла): >> We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or >> Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed >> (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) > > As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some > form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" > with is quite long to explain. > > But the law says "one contract = one public IP". > > Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] desperate for ipv4 much?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]