Per,
On 2007-11-12 22:15, Per Heldal wrote:
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
FYI --
I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
direction) that I've missed.
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why such an
address-block must be tagged 'special'.
I'm going to disagree. Of course, for RFC 4193 there's no doubt that
an IANA-assigned fixed prefix is needed. But I think the argument is
much the same for any reasonable form of ULA-C prefix; we need them
to be universally identifiable as local prefixes that should only
be routed by an IGP. If you don't want that property, they don't
deserve a name containing "local" and should indeed be allocated
by registry policy. But then they are a different animal and need
a different name.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
