[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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Tue May 15 11:47:28 CEST 2007
bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:30:01PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> Other than by issuing bogon lists, where the ULA-centra prefixes will be >> noted. You certainly can't stop it or any other type of ipv6 address >> from becoming PI. But you can stop it from being useful PI space, which >> is all you need to do. >> >> Nick > > you, my friend, have an over inflated view of your ability > to effect "useful" for others. imho of course. I make no claim of any such ability :-) The point is, if a block is carved out and marked specifically as being non-routable on the public v6 internet, it will have degraded connectivity to some degree or other. On a related issue, I'd be interested to know what the reachability degradation was like for the last of the 3ffe:: space after 6/6/6? You didn't happen to do any measurements on it? Nick, psychically effecting usefulness all over the v6 internet
- 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 ]