[150756] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Common operational misconceptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mukom Akong T.)
Sat Mar 3 03:35:30 2012
In-Reply-To: <4F3C51F4.2020305@rancid.berkeley.edu>
From: "Mukom Akong T." <mukom.tamon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:33:49 +0400
To: Michael Sinatra <michael@rancid.berkeley.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Michael Sinatra
<michael@rancid.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> ULA is the IPv6 equivalent of RFC1918
Michael, could you explain this a bit more? In the sense that :
a. Anyone can use ULA pretty much as they wish without having to go to
their ISP or RIR - same for RFC1918
b. In order to get to the public Internet, with ULA addressing, some
kind of translation is required - same for RFC1918
c. Without centralised registration, two different networks could end
up using same ULA space - same for RFC1918
There are certainly not identical but I'd think loosely equivalent.
What am I missing?
>
--=20
Mukom Akong [Tamon]
______________
=E2=80=9CWe don't LIVE in order to BREATH. Similarly WORKING in order to ma=
ke
MONEY puts us on a one way street to irrelevance.=E2=80=9C
[In Search of Excellence & Perfection] - http://perfexcellence.org
[Moments of TechXcellence] - http://techexcellence.net
[ICT Business Integration] -=C2=A0http://ibiztech.wordpress.com
[About Me] - http://about.me/perfexcellence
