On 12 nov 2007, at 4:46, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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.
Not sure how this helps us forward except in triggering another round
of discussion, to which you'll find my contribution below.
ULAs are largely targeted at fulfilling the need for local, Internet
Service Provider (ISP)-independent prefixes
This sounds like "provider independent" which is a very different
ballgame.
The point of ULAs is not that they are independent of any particular
provider, they're independent of any and all connectivity to the
internet at large.
There is a widely-held view in the Internet operations community that
ULA-Cs will end-up being routed across the Internet and will,
effectively, result in the unlimited allocation of globally routed
Provider Independent (PI) addresses.
I don't think this is "widely" held, but it's certainly vocally held.
Since addresses are only usable when a rather large part of the
internet accepts routes for them, it seems rather strange to make this
assumption in the presence of explicit standards language that these
addresses are NOT to be used in this way. I.e., the argument is that
the entire internet is going to to something which is undesireable if
these addresses are created. However, if the entire internet is doing
it, wouldn't that action by definition be desireable (regardless of
whether it's a good idea)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
