nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...


From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:19:11 -0200


        Lucky you.

.as

On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com> wrote:

On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along these lines back in 1995 or so when the 
IAB was coming out with http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt.  Given the publication of 1814, you can probably 
guess how far those arguments fared.

You missed the "anticipates external connectivity to the Internet" part.  Networks that never touch the internet 
have RFC1918 address space to use. (and that works 99.999% of the time.)


       Except in acquisitions and private peering.

as

Especially during acquisitions, my $EMPLOYEER has made several
acquisitions recently and every one of them was wrought with painful
RFC1918 overlap problems.

Thanks,
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber:  juicewvu () gmail com
phone:  304.237.9369(c)



Current thread: