[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Thu Jun 7 17:47:54 CEST 2007
> > Should ULA-C be published in the Whois database? what about reverse DNS > > for them, should they be delegated or just reply a NXDOMAIN? > > let's see. ula-c should be assigned and tracked by rirs. they > should have whois and in-addr.arpa. do remind me how they > differ from pi space. i keep forgetting. Oh, they differ because they are supposedly "not routeable on the public big-I Internet" because "they will be filtered away by ISPs". However, I suspect you are perhaps hinting that when a sufficient number of organizations have been given ULA-C addresses, the pressure on ISPs is going to be like "oh, pretty please, for this amount of $$$, can you please route these ULA-C addresses for me across your network", and after a while with the sheer meat- weight of all the sloppily-handed-out ULA-C addresses, we will have re-created the swamp from IPv4 (192/8)? Regards, - Håvard
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]