Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 25 Jun 2007, at 10:39pm, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases >> for ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out: > > [...] > >> In addition, I am likely to change ISPs over time, and I'm too small >> to qualify for PI space, > > It seems that if you qualified for PI space you wouldn't want ULA-C > space. Is that right?
Most of the times, from what I understand. But one case was raised where it would 'be easy to filter out ULA and distinguish from Internet space', thus a site would have 2 prefixes: "Local" using ULA and "Global" using PI. Which IMHO would only run into a lot of problems and even more complexity etc. It is at least a case which has been mentioned, but if anybody would actually ever use that. Especially with the "we do IPv4 like this thus we do IPv6 like that also" mindset that will not be a common network setup I guess. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
