Re: [v6ops] Heads up
Arturo Servin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I should have said, "longer" than a /8. Thanks for the offline comments about it. Regards, -as On 9 Nov 2010, at 07:23, Arturo Servin wrote: > > Not sure if IANA can issue something shorter than a /8. > > -as > > On 9 Nov 2010, at 06:34, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> Fred, I think, mis-typed. The request would go to IANA. The space, to answer the other question is either /10 or /12. >> >> Chris >> >> On 09Nov2010, at 15.21, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> Dave, >>> >>> On 2010-11-09 17:09, David Conrad wrote: >>>> I'm confused, but that may be because of lack of information. >>>> >>>> Ignoring for the time being the advisability of doing this, if we're talking about a new pseudo-RFC 1918 block, why is it going to a regional registry? Presumably its use would be global. Shouldn't it be a direct allocation by IANA as a result of IETF action? >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_run >>> >>> Brian >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>>> On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for >>>>>> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but >>>>>> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a >>>>>> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it >>>>>> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question >>>>>> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the >>>>>> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it. >>>>> i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of >>>>> years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to >>>>> ietf. >>>>> >>>>> it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one >>>>> little bit. >>>>> >>>>> they made the current mess and this just delays the inevitable and >>>>> they'll want some other silliness to bail them out next time. >>>>> >>>>> the space will be immediately be used by others, and thus will defeat >>>>> the alleged purpose of giving them private space with which to stitch >>>>> together 1918 customers. >>>>> >>>>> it will cement in and perpetuate the n-level ipv4 nat model. >>>>> >>>>> randy >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> v6ops mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> v6ops mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPS-AREA mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >>> >> >> -- >> Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Telstra o +61 3 8647 6389 >> pgp key https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area