[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> 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.
> 

RFC 4193 ULAs do not insure global uniqueness, nor do they offer an
outside authority that documents if a given organization has a legitimate
claim to use a specific address in the event of a collision.

We need a mechanism to guarantee global uniqueness between us and our
managed customer networks.

___Jason