Re: Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

hi,

Considering currently security policies that have been deployed in the
network, the new reserved /8 prefix may lead to not only re-design the
security policies, but also reconfigure the related nodes which has high
risk.

so, my point is negative.

Jin Yan Lin
China Telecom


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:18:49PM +0800, Rémi Després wrote:
> > But you won't be hurt if some others use this new /8 prefix.
>
> Sure.  Someone else might have a good use for a /22 that they can't
> get because the last /8 was taken away for NAT444 services.
>
> Especially content providers will need small bits of IPv4 space to
> provide content to large masses of not-yet-IPv6 capable eyeballs.
>
> Against this proposal.
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> --
> did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops