nanog mailing list archives
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:28:13 +0000
On 25/01/2012 16:15, Dale W. Carder wrote:
I believe there is no need to replicate the headaches of rfc1918 in the next address-family eternity.
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. Nick
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)