nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
From: TJ <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:36:11 -0400
I figured 0000 was a good candidate since it's already partially in usefor reserved special addresses.
But in a totally non-routable fashion, as it stands today. ULA's have the immediate benefit of being routable, but not globally so - and (hopefully) already being in filter lists to prevent accidental implementation. /TJ
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast TJ (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Chris Adams (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN ... anycast Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Kevin Loch (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Andy Davidson (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Randy Bush (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Matthew Moyle-Croft (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 28)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mark Smith (Oct 29)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Ray Soucy (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Ray Soucy (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN trejrco (Oct 19)