Thus spake "Scott Leibrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, I agree that any site should be able to get a ULA-C
assignment, at nominal cost, and that ULA netblocks should
be kept out of the DFZ.
I think we all agree that ULA prefixes _should_ be kept out of the DFZ, but
the organizations (IETF, RIRs) debating this policy have absolutely zero
ability to make it happen. At most, it's a suggestion to operators, and
I'll need more than a mere suggestion that a unique prefix isn't routable to
be even neutral on the topic.
If people want guaranteed-unique addresses, let them go to their RIR for PI
space. If their RIR doesn't give such out, they can change the policies.
If they're unable to change the policies, there obviously is not sufficient
public support for the idea in the first place, and the IETF has no business
telling the RIRs they're wrong.
ULA-C is an attempt to get around RIR policy mechanisms, plain and simple.
Don't give me this "but the RIRs don't have to take it" stuff, because
registry shopping will occur. As long as one RIR signs up, we're all going
to be forced to live with the results.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
