nanog mailing list archives
Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
From: Bill Stewart <nonobvious () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:19:14 -0700
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco () ns sol net> wrote:
And on that note, I enclose the following, which was rejected by the RFC Editor, but seems relevant to this discussion, so here's the draft.
Well of course it was rejected - using 257/8 sets the Evil Bit - you need to make that block Reserved. It may still have some applications as an augmentation to 127/8, so 257.0.0.1 is the address of your Evil Twin.
Current thread:
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Joe Greco (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Bill Stewart (Apr 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Jorge Amodio (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Dale Carstensen (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Larry Sheldon (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Larry Sheldon (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? david raistrick (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Joel Jaeggli (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Owen DeLong (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Owen DeLong (Apr 01)
- Re: 100% want IPv6 - Was: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 01)