Jeroen Massar <[email protected]> wrote:
|On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
|> Hi Brian,
|>
|> Am 28.09.2011 23:07, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
|>> On 2011-09-28 23:08, Roland Bless wrote:
|>> ...
|>>> The current ULA-C...
|>>
|>> What do you mean? There is no current definition of ULA-C.
|>
|> That's right :-)
|> I was referring to the definition in RFC 4193 with L=0, i.e.,
|> centrally assigned ULAs. I know that the registry and assignment
|> procedure for ULA-C are not defined yet, but the basic format will be
|> the same as in RFC 4193. The few I-D proposals for ULA-Cs seemed
|> to suggest allocating /48s and not larger address blocks and I could
|> very well imagine, that this will be the case if we ever define ULA-Cs.
|
|You do realize that the RIRs are providing exactly what you describe? :)
Except that RIRs generally charge a high rent for those addresses and/or
impose constraints on how they can be used. ULAs were supposed to be a
replacement for site local addresses, available to anyone for any purpose.
| - globally guaranteed unique (due to registry) large address prefixes
|
|Which is why from my information ULA-C has also been abandoned, as it
|already is something that has already been resolved.
|
|What makes me wonder though, is why you would want to have different
|prefixes in different locations that never ever ever will talk to each
|other directly using those prefixes.
And so we come full circle. Site local addresses existed for that kind of
situation. Now why again was it so critical to get rid of them? :)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
