> > Make travel plans to attend the next IANA meeting, and in the meantime,
> > join the IANA mailing lists. Voice your concern over PI space issues, and
> > the making available of small PI blocks to all comers.
aside from the fact that iana doesn't have meetings or mailing lists, i note
that ica
> > where in my diffs do i restrict RIRs to the current set of RIRs? it's
> > expected that there may be more RIRs in the future.
>
> Is this a backdoor attempt to make it possible for sovereign nations to
> acquire their own IP allocations as proposed by Houlin Zhao of the ITU?
no.
---
> > > >>> | 7 bits |1| 8 bits | 16 bits | 16 bits | 80 bits |
> > > >>> ++-+--+-+-+--+
> > > >>> | Prefix |L| Reserved | RIR Num | LIR Num | User Num |
> > > >>> ++-+--+-+-+--+
>
> Something
Very late to this party, but:
On 27-Jun-2007, at 09:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We can argue about the meaning of "intrinsically" I guess. But what
I mean
is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
Architecturally, they are certainly routeable (and so are /128s).
B
> Oddly enough, what I recommend for now is - put ULA-C on the
> back burner.
I generally agree with what Brian has said here and I especially support
his recommendation to push this to the backburner and let it stew for a
while. We really need more clarity on use-cases for this before going
furt
> where in my diffs do i restrict RIRs to the current set of
> RIRs? it's expected that there may be more RIRs in the
> future.
Is this a backdoor attempt to make it possible for sovereign nations to
acquire their own IP allocations as proposed by Houlin Zhao of the ITU?
--Michael Dillon
---
> > > I would support Paul proposal, but with one small change. Paul
> > > proposes a delegation hierarchy in the ULA-C space:
> > >
> > >>> should be replaced with this one:
> > >>>
> > >>> | 7 bits |1| 8 bits | 16 bits | 16 bits | 80 bits |
> > >>> ++-+--+-
> 4) can the ULA-C's be kept out of the DFZ?
Since the IETF has no control whatsoever over the DFZ, then the answer
has to be, no.
The DFZ is the core of the public Internet, one of many internetworks
which use IETF protocols. If the operators of the private networks who
have formed the DFZ, de
> First, s/laptop/platform - where, a "platform" could be
> something relatively small (like my laptop) or something
> quite a bit larger (like a cruise ship). Any points
> in-between (planes, trains, automobiles, etc.) also meet the
> description. But, all of them are platforms and all of them
> those in the AfriNIC region who want globally unique,
> registered space but do not plan to "announce the IPv6 PI
> address space" have no method of getting any such space. if
> anyone reads this differently than i do, please educate me.
Do the RIRs actually refuse to allocate addresses to o
> A site is a network of computers with a single
> administration, this can mean indeed a major corporation (who
> maybe even require multiple /48's which is why rfc4193 is a
> bit off to cover those cases)
Where has the IETF redefined the meaning of the word "site"?
In plain English, this word
> My main question about ULA-C still stands: how is it
> different from PI?
To understand the difference between PI and ULA-C you need to understand
the difference between the public Internet and an IP internetwork. Any
set of networks that use the Internet Protocols are an IP internetwork.
Howev
"Clearly ULA-C is just "cheap address space", nothing more nothing less."
Well, yes and no. Mostly yes. It is also a readily identifiable block of
said (cheap) addresses, with some operational differences from normal
(globally routable) addresses.
I, for one, have no problem at all with ULA and
13 matches
Mail list logo
