nanog mailing list archives
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
From: Dave Pooser <dave.nanog () alfordmedia com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:34:53 -0600
On 1/25/12 10:28 AM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick () foobar org> wrote:
I wish you luck selling this notion to enterprise network people, most of who appear to believe that rfc1918 address space is a feature, not a bug.
Until they've gone through an M&A where they had to connect multiple sites using overlapping RFC1918 space, of course. Then the idea of globally unique addressing, even if it's not globally routable, starts looking awfully useful. -- Dave Pooser Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
Current thread:
- using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Cameron Byrne (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jay Ford (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Dale W. Carder (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Nick Hilliard (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Dave Pooser (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jima (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Cameron Byrne (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Nick Hilliard (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Cameron Byrne (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Cameron Byrne (Jan 26)