[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed May 30 16:48:16 CEST 2007
On May 30, 2007, at 4:33 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 12:08 -0700, David Williamson wrote: >> I wasn't going to post again today to this list, but I cannot let >> blatantly incorrect statements go by. PI is not hard to get, >> although >> your experience may vary by region. My org holds a PI /48, and it >> took me 2 days of duration and ten minutes of effort to receive it. >> That's nearly trivial, in my book. > > If you want to endorse PI for "private" use please also consider > that it > leaves blocks wide open to abuse. Separate ULA-C space can easily be > filtered, but how do you easily prevent hijacking of unannounced > PI-prefixes should such private blocks become as commonplace as > rfc1918-space? How do you prevent it now, in IPv4 ? (I know several companies with addressable blocks for internal use, and so I suspect that this is not that rare.) Regards Marshall > > //per > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]