nanog mailing list archives
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:51:58 -0400
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
No, there are several reserved stretches of both IPv4 and DNS space for just such reasons. example.com is the most common and well known, but see also RFC 3330 and RFC 5737, not necessarily in that order.
See also this thread http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034179.html from less than two weeks ago for discussion of this in relation to IPv6. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Current thread:
- CSI New York fake IPv6 Skeeve Stevens (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Jay Ashworth (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Jeff Wheeler (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Paul Timmins (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Martin Millnert (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Nick Hilliard (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Fred Baker (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Ina Faye-Lund (Mar 21)
- RE: CSI New York fake IPv6 George Bonser (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Tony Finch (Mar 21)
- RE: CSI New York fake IPv6 Stefan Fouant (Mar 20)