On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:39:31 -, Peter Corlett said:
> I can sort of see the point in ULAs, although if you want a globally unique
> address, why not just use a public address?
Maybe you don't *want* a public address. In fact, I *know* sometimes you
don't want one - because you *tell* us you do
Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> It's extremely ugly, but that's what one gets for using private address
> space. This exact scenario was a large part of why I supported ULAs for
> IPv6.
I can sort of see the point in ULAs, although if you want a globally unique
address, why not
On Sat, 27 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8 >locally?
Route filter and PBR.
I don't think so. If you're an end user assigned the "private version of"
41.0.0.1, how do you reach a web site on the real 41.0.0.1?...short of
craz
> How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8 >locally?
Route filter and PBR.
hjan
Thus spake "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Presumably they're double-natting. I had to do that once for Y2K
compliance for three large governmental networks that were all statically
addressed in net-10 and wouldn't/couldn't renumber in time.
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:44:04AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
> > > Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail asking me to
> > check
> > > on my connectivity to them an
On Fri, 26 May 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> The only way I see to achieve this is to have dns resolver
> on the fly convert remote addresses from same network into some other
> network and then NAT from those other addresses.
Split-horizon DNS, external to the clients, but
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
> Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail asking me to check
> on my connectivity to them and well, it worked.
Presumably they're double-natting. I had to do that once for Y2K
compli
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
> Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail asking me to check
> on my connectivity to them and well, it worked.
Presumably they're double-natting. I had to do that once for Y2K
compliance for three large governmental networks
well they're not really hijacking it - as in they are not announcing it or
affecting unrelated networks on the internet
its no different than a private firewall/security policy, except we know
they're doing it because they're broken not because they intend to be denying
connectivity to those n
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Richard Mikisa wrote:
Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to fastweb net.
How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8 locally?
Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail asking me to check
on my
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Richard Mikisa wrote:
Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to fastweb net.
How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8 locally?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to fastweb net.
On 5/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking address space?
(please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
--bill
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0
so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking address space?
(please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
--bill
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0300, Richard Mikisa wrote:
>
> This came in from someone in Italy..
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *
>
This came in from someone in Italy..
-- Forwarded message --
From: *
Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there adsl clients but
>instead of using the rfc1918 space like most people, t
15 matches
Mail list logo
