[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
Kevin Loch
kloch at hotnic.net
Tue Aug 22 13:48:11 EDT 2006
- Previous message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Next message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephen Sprunk wrote: > That depends if the intent of 2006-2 was to address hosts that could be > accessed from outside the AS or not. If no, then 2006-2 should be > killed and/or replaced with a policy telling people to use RFC 4193 > ULAs. One of the benefits of 2006-2 vs ULA is that public reverse dns delegations are possible. This is important if they will be used to number non-loopback router interfaces. - Kevin
- Previous message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Next message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list