IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
arturo.servin at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 12:19:11 CST 2011
On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>>> Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt. Given the publication of 1814, you can probably guess how far those arguments fared.
>>> You missed the "anticipates external connectivity to the Internet" part. Networks that never touch the internet have RFC1918 address space to use. (and that works 99.999% of the time.)
>> Except in acquisitions and private peering.
> Especially during acquisitions, my $EMPLOYEER has made several
> acquisitions recently and every one of them was wrought with painful
> RFC1918 overlap problems.
> Josh Smith
> email/jabber: juicewvu at gmail.com
> phone: 304.237.9369(c)
More information about the NANOG