[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Mon May 14 09:51:15 CEST 2007
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:30:40AM +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > > > > ULA-central is NOT intended to be uses as IPv6 PI. > > but there is no way to stop it from becoming so. In the same way that RFC 1918 space is such a huge problem for the IPv4 routing table, ULA-central would be a problem in IPv6. (I think ULA-central is completely unnecessary, but I also think the "oh mi gawd IPv6 PI!!!1" argument is bogus.) -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]