[ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI

On Jun 8, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:

> I'm not going to compare PI to ULA-C as the latter isn't well defined
> (no draft) - but - for the sake of seeing if I'm understanding the
> discussion:
>
> Comparing PI and to some addressing scheme that is purported to not
> be in the DFZ:
>
> 1) Both are the same amount of work and benefit to the RIRS.
>
> 2) PI puts a route into the DFZ, the other thing doesn't.
>
Um, no.  There is some attempt at muddying the waters by trying to
build this illusion into the discussion, but, in actual fact, PI issued
to a non-connected network would not likely put a route in the DFZ.
The other thing issued to a network that couldn't qualify for connected
PI through some less scrutinized process, OTOH, will eventually
result in those prefixes showing up in the DFZ for at least some
definitions of the DFZ.
> The latter point makes the non-routed address scheme less "costly" to
> network operations.  OTOH, as both are the same in the registration
> process I would think that they are the same under all other RIR
> policies (cost sharing, reporting, whois/in-addr, etc.)
>
One would hope, but, the answers to those questions are part of what
is not yet clear from the lack of definition/draft.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070608/2620728c/attachment.bin