[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 05:30 +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> > 
> > ULA-central is NOT intended to be uses as IPv6 PI.
> 
> 	but there is no way to stop it from becoming so.


What makes that different from any other randomly selected block of
addresses if you don't apply some form of filter?

The current routing-architecture applied to v6 will blow up in our face
sooner or later without improved mechanisms to prevent excessive
de-aggregation and unauthorised use of unallocated blocks. I'm no fan of
private addressing, but it doesn't seem awfully hard to include the
handling of ULA-central in such a solution.


//per