[address-policy-wg] Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Fri May 29 10:36:41 CEST 2009
poty at iiat.ru wrote: > Maybe you are right, but it doesn’t prove that is IS good in IPv6 world > too. I can’t understand, why I should think about such private matters > (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE’s > policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the > public network called the Internet, then it’s not the scope of our thinking! IPv4: * RFC1918 + just grab - everybody in the world uses it, lots of clashes - not suitable for interconnecting ever to other networks - generally implies a lot of NAT at one point in time * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it IPv6: * ULA, RFC4193 + nobody to talk to, calculate your own - never to be used anywhere on the Internet - not 100.00000% sure that it is globally unique (also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a 'registry' which would make it at least "unique" when everybody uses that) - could imply NAT, though that should not be used with IPv6 * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + can be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it You can pick what you want, but heed the warnings. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090529/36b42f1f/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]