mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Sun Apr 25 18:32:30 CDT 2010
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
> Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
> > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
> My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
> robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
> internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
> available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
> global only people are saying.
> (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
> login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
> address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
that one -- the link-local address.
"You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it."
-- Seen in a fortune cookie
More information about the NANOG