Manfredi, Albert E wrote: [..] > If we get more restrictive about ULA-Cs, my bet is that something else > will morph to take their place (and the place of site-local addresses). > I guess people just like to have this tool.
The "ULA-C tool" already exists: IPv6 PI space from the RIRs. That satisfies all the needs they can ever have and can even provide them with reverse DNS without having to do split-dns, though split dns is most likely already required, how else do you keep certain prefixes "local"/"internal". People, like home users or totally disconnected networks that will never ever ever ever connect to the Internet can use ULA (rfc4193) space that is auto generated. Except for the 'you can easily filter on fc00::/8 from slipping onto the internet' argument, I have not heared any compelling argument in favor of ULA (except that some people do not want to pay the small fee for a PI prefix). People in various operational forums have also raised considerate arguments against ULA-C and they are expecting people to want to announce blocks they "own" (and most likely see as property) onto the Internet. PI exists for that, so lets keep it at one swamp please. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
