nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:03:19 -0400
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:39:31 -0000, Peter Corlett said:
I can sort of see the point in ULAs, although if you want a globally unique address, why not just use a public address?
Maybe you don't *want* a public address. In fact, I *know* sometimes you don't want one - because you *tell* us you don't:
I tend to pick out random /24s from 172.16/12 when I need private addresses. Virtually nobody uses those, which makes them most suitable.
Sounds to me like you've just re-invented the ULA for IPv4. This same usage case (plus the collision issue you mentioned) are *exactly* why ULA's were pushed...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement, (continued)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement bmanning (May 24)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Richard Mikisa (May 24)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement william(at)elan.net (May 25)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Mikisa Richard (May 25)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Bill Woodcock (May 26)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement william(at)elan.net (May 26)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Bill Woodcock (May 26)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Joseph S D Yao (May 26)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Stephen Sprunk (May 26)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Peter Corlett (May 30)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Valdis . Kletnieks (May 30)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement steve (May 26)
- Re: 41/8 announcement Patrick W. Gilmore (May 24)
- Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement Jon Lewis (May 27)