[111671] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Feb 10 05:22:00 2009
To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:03:40 +1100."
<20090210070340.GI23813@hezmatt.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:21:46 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1234261306_29741P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:03:40 +1100, Matthew Palmer said:
> Considering that RFC1918 says nothing about IPv at all, could that be a
> blocker for deployment in general? That'd also make for an interesting
> discussion re: other legacy protocols (IPX, anyone?)...
I was all set to call shenanigans on this one - except I double-checked the
dates on the RFCs, and RFC1752 pre-dates 1918 by a year...
Not sure what it says about our industry that both RFCs are 13+ years old
now, and we still can't collectively do either one right...
--==_Exmh_1234261306_29741P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFJkVU6cC3lWbTT17ARAnMEAKDkfpD+eF36+sGCkoP0k1cx+TVQOwCfeWDT
jKIST2e1haaVcOFeoHWK8Cs=
=08en
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1234261306_29741P--
