[131197] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Why_ULA=3A_low_collision_chance_=28Was=3A_IPv6_fc00=3A=3A=2F?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Oct 21 09:03:18 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimtQVrxF_nL+2an64ZPYxqE5Bw7qB6hG7vM6pUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:02:53 -0400
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
> That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. =A0If
> that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
> desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
> for FC00::/8 space to be assigned. =A0But then why wouldn't you just ask
> for a GUA at that point.
Because you might want space that doesn't route on the Internet so
that if your routes accidentally leak external folks still can't reach
you?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
