[90524] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fwd: 41/8 announcement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue May 30 12:03:52 2006
To: abuse@cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett)
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 May 2006 15:39:31 -0000."
<e5hovj$1th$1@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:03:19 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1149004998_2827P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:39:31 -0000, Peter Corlett said:
> I can sort of see the point in ULAs, although if you want a globally unique
> address, why not just use a public address?
Maybe you don't *want* a public address. In fact, I *know* sometimes you
don't want one - because you *tell* us you don't:
> I tend to pick out random /24s from 172.16/12 when I need private addresses.
> Virtually nobody uses those, which makes them most suitable.
Sounds to me like you've just re-invented the ULA for IPv4. This same
usage case (plus the collision issue you mentioned) are *exactly* why ULA's
were pushed...
--==_Exmh_1149004998_2827P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFEfGzGcC3lWbTT17ARAuCNAKD47MmPDGrmkFKxSJMTOvTvk9kFsgCgvvOd
a9qxNCvfXys1uv9UJgy4Ttg=
=ddUx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1149004998_2827P--
