[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue May 22 04:51:19 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 15-mei-2007, at 9:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > And the only way to control ULA-central is to have it within the > RIR system, How would that work in practice? Approximately 100% of all organizations use RFC 1918 space. Obviously one use for RFC 1918 space goes away with IPv6 (NAT) but I'd say that the number of internet users requiring some kind of local addressing will still be 10, 20, 30 or more percent. The RIR membership is measured in thousands. So tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of organizations that may want ULA-c space have no relationship with an RIR. They may not even have a relationship with an ISP... So how are the RIRs supposed to manage their relationship with 10 or 100 times as many people as they have relationships with now?
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list