[137337] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Smith)
Fri Feb 11 08:43:14 2011
In-Reply-To: <A643850F-0050-455B-B790-BC0532B716BF@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:42:07 -0500
From: Josh Smith <juicewvu@gmail.com>
To: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> w=
rote:
>>> Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along=
these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with http://www=
.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt. =C2=A0Given the publication of 1814, you can pro=
bably guess how far those arguments fared.
>>
>> You missed the "anticipates external connectivity to the Internet" part.=
=C2=A0Networks that never touch the internet have RFC1918 address space to=
use. (and that works 99.999% of the time.)
>>
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Except in acquisitions and private peering.
>
> as
Especially during acquisitions, my $EMPLOYEER has made several
acquisitions recently and every one of them was wrought with painful
RFC1918 overlap problems.
Thanks,
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber:=C2=A0 juicewvu@gmail.com
phone:=C2=A0 304.237.9369(c)
