[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

At 22:46 -0400 5/29/07, Thomas Narten wrote:

>What "failed" is that the IETF was fairly close to approving the ULA-C
>approach, but at one ARIN meeting, there was an uproar over the
>idea.

Besides reading Thomas' message, I asked the editors of the document 
why it had fallen into an expired state.  The reason given was 
similar, that it was a technology that seemed to have negative 
implications for the policy space, i.e., it was something the IETF 
worked on that caused a problem for RIR policy, specifically within 
ARIN.  Now that there is a policy to allocate IPv6 provider 
independent space in ARIN, and as Thomas said alternatives to ULA-C 
have failed to fill the gap, a new version of the ULA-C document is 
in production.

I'm posting this because I cringe when there are accusations of an 
organization "failing" or stonewalling something.  Also, from the 
lack of documentation on this topic, I was wary of there being some 
underlying technical glitch that had sprung up and cause the document 
to decay.  Apparently the hold up was the IETF listening to the 
feedback of the RIRs.  The objections then seem not to hold anymore.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.