On 9/29/11 06:20 , Dan Lanciani wrote: > 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.
Even a cursory glance at RFC 4193 would cause you to conclude that they are not in fact to be used for any purpose. if you're refering to having the L bit set to 1 that hasn't been defined yet. ULA-C was proposal to do that. but that's just it, a proposal. joel > | - 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
