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 space for public
use, because sooner or later those private networks
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 2007-06-28 10:46, Per Heldal wrote:
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
(headers trimmed)
From: Scott Leibrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Vixie wrote:
please re-think this in terms of connectivity realms, of which the DFZ
is one, and the american automotive exchange is another, ..., and every
ad-hoc wireless mesh is another. ...
... I'm not sure that we can
I totally agree with Stephen and others than regardless of original
intent 'private' PI routes will end up public, whether by intention down
the road, by accident, or by hi-jacking. It strikes me that the way to
address this is after the allocation process by means of routing
authentication
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
Thus spake Scott Leibrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which wouldn't be nec'y if both of these networks were in some
new kind of PI space that was allocated out of a prefix designated
by IANA for non-DFZ use. (i keep bringing the discussion back
to that point because asking IANA to designate such a
