nanog mailing list archives
Re: The power of default configurations
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:56:01 +0300
Paul Vixie wrote:
IMO, RFC1918 went off the track when both ISP's and registries started asking their customers if they have "seriously considered using 1918 space instead of applying for addresses". This caused many kinds of renumbering nightmares, overlapping addresses, near death of ipv6, etc.no to 1) prolong the pain, 2) beat a horsey.. BUT, why are 1918 ips 'special' to any application? why are non-1918 ips 'special' in a different way?i know this is hard to believe, but i was asked to review 1918 before it went to press, since i'd been vociferous in my comments about 1597. in
Pete
Current thread:
- Re: The power of default configurations Andrew Dul (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Paul Vixie (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Paul Vixie (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Petri Helenius (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Paul Vixie (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Petri Helenius (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Randy Bush (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Michael . Dillon (Apr 08)
- Re: The power of default configurations Simon Waters (Apr 08)
- Re: The power of default configurations Duane Wessels (Apr 08)
- Port 0 traffic Sean Donelan (Apr 08)
- Re: Port 0 traffic Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 08)
- Re: The power of default configurations Paul Vixie (Apr 07)
- Re: The power of default configurations Sean Donelan (Apr 10)