On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Eliot Lear wrote:
<snip>
Of course, if everyone just used PI, none of this would be an issue.
At this point it is plain to see that ULA-C is nothing but PI address space,
because the IETF is in no position to enforce otherwise. So please, let's
just call it what it is.
it is NOT the same, there are several differences and some of them are not
technical but more manager/non-technical ways of viewing things.
* PI are ment to be used on internet
* ULA-C/G are NOT ment to be used on internet (think we can forget the
point that some might want todo it really, the chances are low and even
managers will understand that it aint supposed to be done, most managers
probably even understand RFC1918 ....)
* PI are the same as PA, there are NO real difference except on how you
get it and the size of the block, it is what Paul Dixie have called UA
(unique addresses), nothing else
* ULA-C/G are something completly different, it is more like RFC1918 space
with some extra features,
- the size (amount of IPs)
- global unique so the current pain anyone with large network have when
they are interconnecting, merging due to fusions or other reasons dont
exist
- anyone can, IF the ULA-C/G holder want to, resolve the IP in any given
ULA-C/G block through the global DNS system (a very very nice thing for
everyone that hate the pain split-DNS give you...additional
administration)
and probably a few other things but the above are those I consider most
important.
--
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
