[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

Thus spake <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com>
>>    well that might be tough, since site-local has been depricated,
>>    however, sites can use ULA prefixes w/o fear, since the IETF
>>    has carved out some unicast space as a free-for-all space...
>>    no RIR involvement is possible.  Just carve out what you want/need
>>    and go with it!!!
>
> Officially there is no such thing as ULA. There are no
> RFCs which reference this.
>
> On the other hand, there is an RFC 4193 which seems
> appropriate. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4193.txt
>
> When educating people, it pays to double check your
> facts and make sure that your terminology is clear.

RFC 4193 addresses are commonly referred to, both in and out of the IPv6 
WG, as ULAs.  Perhaps the acronym isn't clear, since it doesn't actually 
appear in the RFC, but it is arguably correct.

> So, given that RFC 4193 exists, should 2006-2 be
> changed in some way? Should 2006-2 explicitly refer
> to RFC 4193?

That depends if the intent of 2006-2 was to address hosts that could be 
accessed from outside the AS or not.  If no, then 2006-2 should be 
killed and/or replaced with a policy telling people to use RFC 4193 
ULAs.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking