[ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
Paul_Vixie at isc.org
Paul_Vixie at isc.org
Fri Jun 8 11:45:04 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Avoiding Square 0 (IPv4 NAT at endusers) (Was: Difference between ULA-C and PI)
- Next message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ed said that the situation wasn't well defined and then: > 2) PI puts a route into the DFZ, the other thing doesn't. maybe PI puts a route into the DFZ, maybe not. maybe it puts zero routes in (fallow) or maybe it puts multiple TE routes in (grazing the commons). maybe the other thing doesn't put a route into the DFZ, but it could still put one into the automotive network exchange, or COMMONS, or elsewhere. > The latter point makes the non-routed address scheme less "costly" to > network operations. maybe. in fact, double-maybe. > At least this is what I have gathered from reading the threads on this. and then again, maybe not.
- Previous message: [ppml] Avoiding Square 0 (IPv4 NAT at endusers) (Was: Difference between ULA-C and PI)
- Next message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list