Hi Eduard,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:55 PM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
> I did not say anything about "registered ULAs". Registration initiative has a
> lot of pros and cons. I am not sure.
>
> I did react to the claim that ULA is not needed. Because I am sure that ULA
> is very much
Vegoda ; Nico Schottelius
; Marco Hogewoning ;
ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was:
Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83)
Hey Eduard,
Vasilenko Eduard writes:
> There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and f
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:40 PM Nico Schottelius
wrote:
[...]
> > ULA does not have a registry because it is highly improbable that
> > there will be prefix clashes because the available space is so vast.
>
> ... if generated truly randomly and people would not tend towards using
> "feed",
Hi Nico,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:12 PM Nico Schottelius
wrote:
[...]
> The status quo is:
>
> - Community projects use ULA, because it's easy and free
> <-|
> - ULA does not have an official registry (and seems to be unlikely that we go
> there)|
>
Hey Leo,
Leo Vegoda writes:
>> ## Motivation
>>
>> The Motivation is:
>>
>> - with GUA, potential connectivity to the Internet later does not
>> require renumbering
>> - with GUA, reverse DNS is easily possible
>
> I don't understand the motivation. What kind of organisation would
> have so
site resiliency.
> Everything else is broken for some reason.
> Not many people know this anecdote.
>
> Eduard
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:l...@vegoda.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 5:39 PM
> To: Vasilenko Eduard
> Cc: Nico Schottelius ;
-
From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:l...@vegoda.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 5:39 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Nico Schottelius ; Marco Hogewoning
; ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was:
Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83)
Hi Eduard
1
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 11:37 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Gert Doering ; Leo Vegoda ; Marco
Hogewoning ; ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was:
Minutes
Hi Eduard,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:10 AM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> Hi Leo,
> Almost any business (even small) would like to have Internet resiliency in
> the form of redundant connections through the different Carriers.
That is not my experience. In my experience, small and medium sized
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 08:33:40AM +, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> 3. use proper source based routing on the ISP routers -> see homenet WG.
>
> a) homenet is not available on real products
Your employer is in a situation to fix that.
> b) if a particular resource is in the walled garden
oes not exist.
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Leo Vegoda ; Marco Hogewoning ;
ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was:
Minutes f
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 08:09:59AM +, Vasilenko Eduard via ipv6-wg wrote:
> Almost any business (even small) would like to have Internet resiliency in
> the form of redundant connections through the different Carriers.
> Then hosts should have PA addresses from different carriers.
>
>
is disconnected.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:l...@vegoda.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:04 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard
Cc: Nico Schottelius ; Marco Hogewoning
; ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was:
Minutes from
> On 20 Dec 2021, at 14:29, Nico Schottelius
> wrote:
[..]
> ## Running / Maintenance / Support
>
> Now in the spirit of GUA space for community projects, I would envision
> not *one*, but potentially *many* free GUA registries, potentially using
> the same code base, but offering different
Hi Eduard,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:18 AM Vasilenko Eduard
wrote:
>
> There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and fees.
> It is the size of the Internet table.
> If just businesses would get PA addresses (GUA) then all routers on the
> Internet would need a 30M
Hi Nico,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Nico Schottelius via ipv6-wg
wrote:
>
>
> Good morning everyone,
>
> a follow up from the RIPE83 IPv6 WG meeting: I had a few talk afterwards
> and at I got the feeling that "not to ULA, but to GUA" would be the most
> sustainable way forward.
>
> ##
Good morning everyone,
a follow up from the RIPE83 IPv6 WG meeting: I had a few talk afterwards
and at I got the feeling that "not to ULA, but to GUA" would be the most
sustainable way forward.
## Motivation
The Motivation is:
- with GUA, potential connectivity to the Internet later does not
17 matches
Mail list logo
