This document is creating a explosive cocktail made of:
- policy: creation of a new authority to perform address assignment outside of the regular channels
- economy: imposition of a fixed one time fee model, preventing competition
and creating a swamp of untraceable registrations
- politics: dangerous instructions to IANA, see Geofff Houston comments
- technology: half baked ideas that do not analyze seriously their impact:
- what about reverse DNS?
- what about address selection rules?
- what about address leakage?
- how to debug those networks when they will leak?
and it is impossible to map those prefixes back to their owner?
All this is designed to address what is mostly a perception/social problem which justification only resides in
a self serving companion document that fails to demonstrate that such local addresses
are actually needed/required.
In a rush to create something to replace the Site Local addresses,
I'm afraid this document is playing the apprentice sorcerer and will create more
long term damage than its author think.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
