[ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Thu Jun 7 14:46:59 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Next message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> It looks to me the primary difference is expectation of cost/ > allocation restrictions. I gather ULA-C isn't supposed to have any. > However, I'm not sure as I'm waiting for a non-expired ULA-C draft. And there you have it! The definitive difference between ULA-C and PI addresses. PI exists and ULA-C is nothing but vaporware. We are wasting our time discussing something that does not exist. There is no point in pontificating on ULA-C and PI and BGP and the global routing table because nobody knows what ULA-C is. In fact, if the people with negative views on ULA-C as proposed in Jordi's rambling messages would leave this list and say all the same things in the IPv6 WG, then ULA-C will never exist. Or it will exist in a far different form that resolves some of those issues. In any case, I am strongly opposed to any ARIN policy that deals with ULA-C in any way until the whole controversy has been settled in the IETF. I accept that people like Randy have good reason to be sceptical of an IETF outcome, nevertheless, I do not believe that it is in ARIN's best interests to predict the IETF outcome on this issue. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Next message: [ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list