4.2. Wrong Way to Influence Registry Policy
It has been argued that it is inappropriate and/or ineffective for
the IETF to attempt to influence address registration policies
through the publication of an RFC that creates a new address space
with defined registration policies.
That does not, however, mean that the IETF shouldn't reserve a
specific prefix for this usage if the consensus is that this is
the correct thing to do, technically and architecturally. I think we
agree that the IETF shouldn't attempt to constrain *how* the space
under that prefix is administered, but that is a separate question.
There is no technical advantage, and there may be some architectural
disadvantages (see Section 4.3), to allocating a prefix for globally
unique addresses with specific registration policies.
Setting aside the architectural argument, I think this second sentence
is wrong. There *is* a technical argument for having a globally defined
prefix for ULA-C, and furthermore for having it adjacent to the prefix
for regular ULA: so that equipment and software can be configured by default
to filter ULAs. You may argue that this is a weak argument, but it exists.
Nit in section 1:
Locally Assigned ULAs are generated within the local enterprise,
either by the network administrator or by a piece of networking
equipment, using a random number generator. These addresses are
probabilistically unique, in the sense that it is extremely unlikely
that there will be an overlap within any reasonably small number of
Centrally Assigned ULA prefixes.
s/Centrally/Locally/
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
