[ppml] IPv6 flawed?
Stephen Sprunk
stephen at sprunk.org
Fri Sep 14 13:08:46 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thus spake "Leroy Ladyzhensky" <leroy at emailsorting.com> > I know of some companies that may have 1000 plus workstations > and servers on their internal network but would never qualify for > IPv4 or IPv6 address's because that don't need much... 10 or so > real IP's Such a company would qualify for PIv4 and thus PIv6 because the policy counts _all_ hosts, not just publicly-visible hosts or NAT boxes. You can get a PI assignment for a _completely disconnected_ network if you have enough hosts, though RFC 1918/4193 space is recommended in such a case. > so, way down the road, when the move to IPv6 why would they > number all their inside machines just because that's the block > their ISP handed to them? just to renumber when they change to > another ISP? That's why we have PI policies for both v4 and v6. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list