On 2007-06-27 20:26, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott, you say
In a situation like this, I need to be able to resolve PTRs for hosts
using my neighboring networks' ULA space
Why do you need to do this?
For all the same reasons I need to resolve PTRs of hosts on the
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
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott, you say
In a situation like this, I need to be able to resolve PTRs for hosts
using my neighboring networks' ULA space
Why do you need to do this?
The need can be seen, but the big question is: why does one need it in
the *global* root.
If one is in a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott, you say
In a situation like this, I need to be able to resolve PTRs for hosts
using my neighboring networks' ULA space
Why do you need to do this?
For all the same reasons I need to resolve PTRs of hosts on the
Internet. I'm a network engineer, so my main
(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
On 25 Jun 2007, at 10:39pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use
cases for ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
[...]
In addition, I am likely to change ISPs over time, and I'm too
small to qualify for PI space,
It seems that if you
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 25 Jun 2007, at 10:39pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases
for ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
[...]
In addition, I am likely to change ISPs over time, and I'm too small
to qualify for PI space,
Paul Vixie wrote:
Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases for
ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
...
thanks.
And thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response.
So, again, I see that ULA-C is a very simple solution to fill a very useful
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
Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases for
ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
Let's say I build a somewhat ad-hoc wireless mesh network covering a
residential area to provide Internet service. For my Internet
connectivity, I get service from several
Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases for
ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
...
thanks.
So, again, I see that ULA-C is a very simple solution to fill a very useful
function that cannot be filled by local ULAs alone (at least without adding
additional
15 matches
Mail list logo
