[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Jul 11 21:41:14 CEST 2005
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:05:40AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> classically, if they have no plan to be connected, they don't get > >> address space. > > ...and do you think this is how it should be? > > in ipv4, yes. > > in ipv6, i am ambivalent. i don't believe v6 space is effectively > so vast it can be wasted, especially with magic boundaries at /64 > and /48. i also don't believe in site-local routing. though it > was called site local _addressing_. the ivtf keeps confusing > addressing and routing and neglecting the interactions and the > implications. but i have no problem with an rfc 1918 equivalent > in ipv6. > > on the other hand, it's can be fun to ask the question this way. > since you will never be connected to the internet, why not just > use whatever address space comes to mind? oh, you're worried > about collisions? with whom? you said you were not connecting to > the internet. > > randy Never is such a long time.... --bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]