[137348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Fri Feb 11 13:20:22 2011
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=0AJPw=EH-kC-Pr76ob4YCm4XSxb4ikqoXBfU9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:19:11 -0200
To: Josh Smith <juicewvu@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Lucky you.
.as
On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin =
<arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad =
<drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>>>> 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. Given the publication of 1814, you =
can probably guess how far those arguments fared.
>>>=20
>>> You missed the "anticipates external connectivity to the Internet" =
part. Networks that never touch the internet have RFC1918 address space =
to use. (and that works 99.999% of the time.)
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Except in acquisitions and private peering.
>>=20
>> as
>=20
> Especially during acquisitions, my $EMPLOYEER has made several
> acquisitions recently and every one of them was wrought with painful
> RFC1918 overlap problems.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Josh Smith
> KD8HRX
> email/jabber: juicewvu@gmail.com
> phone: 304.237.9369(c)
