On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 10:32 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-12-06 13:28, Per Heldal wrote:
and ULA
does IMHO not qualify as such.
IMHO ULA does qualify, in fact must qualify, since ULAs
have technical impact (see my previous note and Tony Hain's
comment on it).
I still
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 11:39 -0800, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
ULA is LOCAL.
It has nothing to do with PI.
People need address space to number the links between their SQL and
web servers. This is completely orthogonal to address space used on
the internet.
If it's routed at some
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:28 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-11-12 22:15, Per Heldal wrote:
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why such an
address-block must be tagged 'special'.
I'm
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:21 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The question here still remains though: how really different is this
from PI. In effect it is non-DFZ-PI space that is being defined here.
RIR's themselves could thus also set aside a /20 or something and
allocate /40-/48's from that
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
* ULA-C/G are NOT ment to be used on internet
OTOH, there's no way for the IETF or RIRs to stop it from happening. I'm
not saying it will, but it is irresponsible to claim it won't when there's
no mechanism to enforce that.
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 16:44 -0700, bill fumerola wrote:
AfriNIC apparently has decided they can get into the routability business
by stipulating that PIv6 space allocated must be 'announced' within a
year or it will be taken back. the first time they use that clause to
take back space,
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 14:11 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
* ULA-C/G are NOT ment to be used on internet
OTOH, there's no way for the IETF or RIRs to stop it from happening. I'm
not saying
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 10:12 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 13:54, Per Heldal wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 23:48 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If we want to issue address space to folks for private use, it needs to
be
out of the same block(s) that the RIRs use to allocate
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 23:48 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If we want to issue address space to folks for private use, it needs to be
out of the same block(s) that the RIRs use to allocate space for public
use, because sooner or later those private networks are going to end up
being publicly
