[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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Jun 7 18:19:35 CEST 2007
Havard Eidnes wrote: > [...] we will have re-created the swamp from IPv4 (192/8)? By introducing ipv6 PI, we are already committing to reproduce a routing swamp, albeit with defined borders (which will allow reasonable length-based prefix filtering). ULA-C would simply be another similarly defined swamp area, of limited reachability and therefore of limited use. Sure, you're going to get a couple of organisation crazeee enough to want to advertise this space. If they're stupid enough to want their business model depend on a completely broken engineering model, let them go ahead with it and see how far it gets them. Nick
- 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 ]