Fwd: 41/8 announcement

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Tue May 30 16:03:19 UTC 2006

On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:39:31 -0000, Peter Corlett said:
> I can sort of see the point in ULAs, although if you want a globally unique
> address, why not just use a public address?

Maybe you don't *want* a public address. In fact, I *know* sometimes you
don't want one - because you *tell* us you don't:

> I tend to pick out random /24s from 172.16/12 when I need private addresses.
> Virtually nobody uses those, which makes them most suitable.

Sounds to me like you've just re-invented the ULA for IPv4.  This same
usage case (plus the collision issue you mentioned) are *exactly* why ULA's
were pushed...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060530/f1f7856a/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list