[address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Thu Jun 14 12:32:18 CEST 2007
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: <snip> > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could >> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal >> infrastructure's. what operators? I cant remember to have seen one operator supporting that point of view. My point of view from a LIR/network point of view etc was that ULA-C could be usefull but without reverse DNS it is useless. Maybe even with reverse DNS we want todo it the correct way by using our netblock we got from RIPE. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]