> > Make travel plans to attend the next IANA meeting, and in the meantime, > > join the IANA mailing lists. Voice your concern over PI space issues, and > > the making available of small PI blocks to all comers.
aside from the fact that iana doesn't have meetings or mailing lists, i note that icann (iana's current corporate parent) doesn't set PI policy, that's a regional thing. iana does what ietf tells it. rir's do what their members tell them. so, the above advice is a total multiple nonsequitur. > In particular, the whole issue of PI versus ULA-C has not been clearly > stated. What does ULA-C bring to the table that cannot be done with PI > addresses? If the answer is nothing, then ULA-C is not needed at all. thus far, rir community input has been "don't make me by 2-megaroute routers" and the end result is policies that prohibit "PI for everybody". ula-c is an attempt to placate those communities while still offering unique address space to everybody. that's been stated, clearly, here and on [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
