nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]
From: Rob Seastrom <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 15:42:04 -0400
Randy Bush <randy () psg com> writes:
Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for _everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.you forced an rfc allocation. that makes public space, and is and will be used as such. you wanted an 'owned' allocation that you and your friends control, you shoulda gone to the rirs.
Usually I manage to keep the Strangelove hand in check and not feed the troll, but the matter was raised (at least in the ARIN region). https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_5.html I believe that the arguments that shared transition space were IETF's purview were compelling. I'm no fan of non-globally-unique space in general, but forcing the RFC route was the least-worst route for things to move forward. Randy, I trust that you're also vigorously advocating people's use of UK-MOD-19850128 (aka net 25) as "just more 1918 space" inside their organizations too? After all, it's what I encourage *my* competitors to do. -r
Current thread:
- Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 02)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Måns Nilsson (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Randy Bush (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] joel jaeggli (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Randy Bush (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Chris Grundemann (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Randy Bush (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Rob Seastrom (May 05)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Måns Nilsson (May 03)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Mark Tinka (May 04)
- RE: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Vitkovský Adam (May 05)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Mark Tinka (May 05)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Rajiv Asati (rajiva) (May 06)
- Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Mark Tinka (May 06)
- RE: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Vitkovský Adam (May 06)