>-----Original Message----- >From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 14:10 >To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List >Subject: Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: Revising Centrally >Assigned ULA draft > >On Jun 14, 2007, at 02:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >> Just avoiding ANY collision risk. VERY VERY VERY LOW is not enough for >> them. > >My attitude is that IETF should tell them that's THEIR problem, not >OURS. Has the operator community explained why the odds of a collision >in a 2^40 address space pose an unacceptable risk to them, which they >can't mitigate without the participation of an Internet Society >organization?
If it "isn't our problem" then the original ULA RFC shouldn't have made the provision at all. They (correctly, IMHO) did make a provision for globally unique ULAs (ULA-C), so actually making these usable / real is, in fact, "our problem". /TJ ... still not fully understanding why all the confusion/debate is going on about this (or, why it is happening now), and still just adding my ~$.02 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
