On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
My not-well-articulated point was: if everyone seems to have made RFC
1918 work quite well, why do we need to get overly precise in
this time around?
I happen to work for a network that has to deal on a very regular basis
with the nightmare of overlapping RFC1918 space, so I do not share
your opinion that "everyone seems to have made RFC1918 work quite well".
I work on a quite similar network and we have the same issues. And I've
concluded that ULA-C would work great at our place, IF, please note that
BIG IF there, if we get reverse DNS. Without that, it is useless for us
and we might just aswell go with regular "PA" address-space.
... again, the "PI" option will work much better than anything ULA-C
can ever come up with.
--
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
