[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Wed Jun 27 08:27:51 CEST 2007
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Niall O'Reilly wrote: <snip> > > I'ld really like to see a conclusion (for or against, I don't > care) about ULA-C which didn't involve religious convictions. > That probably belongs in another thread. I am in favour of ULA-C and I belive we have a very good use-case for it where I work, but, there is a huge but there. Without global DNS, that is possibility to have reverse DNS for our ULA-C addresses it is completly useless for our cause. And with DNS you get into other complication and in the end you get something called ULA-C which ain't too different from PI space at all. So my conclusion on this is quite simple, it would be nice to have ULA-C but I dont belive there is any point it wasting time on it anymore. Get a decent PI policy in place that let those that need IP addresses get it and we're done. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]