Hi,
On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 23:52, Springob, Andreas (IIT-CSS/Network &
Identity Solutions) wrote:
>
> Hi Wilhelm,
>
> Lot of things were said and all are correct. Lack of knowledge, budget,
> priority, interest, projects, success. It might be rather an approach for
> RIPE and other RIRs to get
Hi Eduard,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:55 PM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
> I did not say anything about "registered ULAs". Registration initiative has a
> lot of pros and cons. I am not sure.
>
> I did react to the claim that ULA is not needed. Because I am sure that ULA
> is very much
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:40 PM Nico Schottelius
wrote:
[...]
> > ULA does not have a registry because it is highly improbable that
> > there will be prefix clashes because the available space is so vast.
>
> ... if generated truly randomly and people would not tend towards using
> "feed",
Hi Nico,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:12 PM Nico Schottelius
wrote:
[...]
> The status quo is:
>
> - Community projects use ULA, because it's easy and free
> <-|
> - ULA does not have an official registry (and seems to be unlikely that we go
> there)|
>
site resiliency.
> Everything else is broken for some reason.
> Not many people know this anecdote.
>
> Eduard
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:l...@vegoda.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 5:39 PM
> To: Vasilenko Eduard
> Cc: Nico Schottelius ;
Hi Eduard,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:10 AM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
> Almost any business (even small) would like to have Internet resiliency in
> the form of redundant connections through the different Carriers.
That is not my experience. In my experience, small and medium sized
Hi Eduard,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:18 AM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and fees.
> It is the size of the Internet table.
> If just businesses would get PA addresses (GUA) then all routers on the
> Internet would need a 30M
Hi Nico,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Nico Schottelius via ipv6-wg
wrote:
>
>
> Good morning everyone,
>
> a follow up from the RIPE83 IPv6 WG meeting: I had a few talk afterwards
> and at I got the feeling that "not to ULA, but to GUA" would be the most
> sustainable way forward.
>
> ##
