On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
*before*
minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point
you to a
specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.
It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders,
that
there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that
don't. What
you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want
ULA-C
have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing
ULA-C has
no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative
impact to
all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function
of ULA-C
an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.
Jordi,
You have this backwards. Using PI for the purposes of ULA-C is no
waste
at all. Sectioning off a huge chunk of address space for ULA-C is
the waste.
If it's all PI, then, it can seamlessly move between being unrouted
or routed as
the address-holder sees fit and as needs change. If it is set aside
as ULA, then,
the address space is forever wasted and cannot (theoretically) be
used as
routable space, no matter how little of it is needed for ULA-C.
Those of us who oppose ULA-C have what we believe to be an objective
position that it provides no additional benefit over PI space while
simultaneously
creating some unnecessary classification of addresses that makes
their status
in the routing table ill-defined at best. In our opinion, this
carries the potential
for significant consequences globally.
Just because we do not agree with you does not mean that our concerns
are not legitimate.
Do I think UUNET and others should be able to get secondary
microallocations
to solve the problem they presented? Absolutely. Do I think that we
need to set
aside a /8, /12, /16, or whatever separate from the rest of PI space
to do it? No.
We should just issue them a /48 or whatever it is they need from the
general
pool of available PI space and be done with it. No waste at all. No
negative
consequences to anyone. No ambiguous status as to where you can or
can't
route the addresses, etc.
Owen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
