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 Dec 5, 2007 2:39 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ULA is LOCAL.
It has nothing to do with PI.
sort of correct... I believe the fear here is that if you are in a
world of provider-assigned ip space without any simple hope for
renumbering you will look for ULA-x as a 'no
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.
ULA is also UNIQUE.
(Well, for half of ULA, probably unique).
It
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:39:19 -0800
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
It also
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Brian Dickson; Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: Stupid ULA discussion
Hi Brian,
And to point out the existence of a suitable
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Please do not suggest anything remotely close to this. The v4 mapped v6 address
space is for API compatibility purposes only (i.e. use AF_INET6 with
v4 addresses). These addresses should never ever appear on the wire.
Never say never. RFC 2765 - a proposed standard -
The subject line on this thread is absolutely correct.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 13:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
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
Hi Brian,
And to point out the existence of a suitable replacement for IPv4's
10.0.0.0/8 et al, if they want a non-registered, non-unique, truly
non-routable address space that maps well to their current RFC 1918 space.
And that would be the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address space for RFC 1918.
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.
Agreed!
If it's routed at some point, this means we're all getting
enough money to
James,
-Original Message-
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:27 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: Stupid ULA discussion
The subject line on this thread is absolutely correct.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 13:32, Brian Dickson
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-12-06 08:39, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
ULA is LOCAL.
It has nothing to do with PI.
Another way to say it is that there is a default expectation
that ULAs will be filtered and that PI prefixes will be
routed. That's a good enough rationale for having
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
