> Not sure what you mean by "solving this problem". Some people > want ULA- C. Presumably, they'll be willing to pay reasonable > registration costs. Find a few parties willing to run > registries and be done with it.
The IETF doesn't need to find anyone to run registries. The registry task is delegated to the IANA. In the case of IP addresses, the IANA has further delegated the task to 5 regional RIRs. I don't think that ULA-C or G addresses are important enough to deviate from this structure. The RIRs already have the capability to communicate with applicants in several languages and it would be expensive and complex for IANA to do this kind of work directly. One advantage of delegating this to the RIRs through IANA is that the IETF does not need to deal with the issue of ULA-C addresses becoming a cheap form of PI addresses since the control of that issue will be in the RIRs. If the network operators do not want ULA-C to become a cheap form of PI addresses, then they will maintain strict ULA filters and participate in their RIR's grass-roots democratic process. In fact, a final ULA-C or G RFC should really contain some language that explains this fact and explains why the IETF does not see the need to take any specific action on the cheap PI issue. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
