> Look, if we want to enable the operation of "very large local DFZ" > routing realms (in the hundreds of thousands or millions of > networks) > and we're really, really concerned about accidental leakage of local > prefixes into the DFZ with PI addressing, then I can understand the > motivation for ULA-G/C. Is that really what this is all about? If > so, then I'd like to see the Introduction revised accordingly.
Not to pick on James' post, but several have mentioned that large routing realms would be one reason to require ULA-G/C and it has not yet been suggested that the reverse DNS could itself be thought of as a "large routing realm" of sorts (depending on how applications use the information they find there). ULA-G/C would ideally allow collision-free population of the reverse DNS even with O(10^6) or more delegations. I can't comment furhter on Paul's proposal other than to say that *some* authority(s) needs to be responsible for the collision free delegations. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
