[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Kevin Loch
kloch at kl.net
Tue May 29 10:54:12 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush wrote: > ok, i give. if ula address space is assigned/managed by registries, how > is it actually different from pi space? They're not, they are exactly the same. > > if ipv6 space is effectively infinite (and we once thought ipv4 space > was), then what is the use of ula address space? why not just assign > vanilla ipv6 space? There seems to be a fascination with "private" address space, a result of years of abuse of rfc1918. I don't understand why ULA-L doesn't meet this requirement. If you need uniqueness, then we already have a way to request globally unique addresses. If you want "private" addresses, we have ULA-L. Maybe if we add a field to the PI template to optionally have the assignments marked "PRIVATE SPACE" or "RFC1918-STYLE-KEEP-OUT" everyone will be happy? Unlike ISP space, there is no requirement to actually announce your PI prefix. If you want "private" space, only announce it to networks you wish to talk to. - Kevin
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list