[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

[Jason Schiller]

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> RFC 4193 addresses are commonly referred to, both in and out of the IPv6 
> WG, as ULAs.  Perhaps the acronym isn't clear, since it doesn't actually 
> appear in the RFC, but it is arguably correct.
> 
> > So, given that RFC 4193 exists, should 2006-2 be
> > changed in some way? Should 2006-2 explicitly refer
> > to RFC 4193?
> 
> That depends if the intent of 2006-2 was to address hosts that could be 
> accessed from outside the AS or not.  If no, then 2006-2 should be 
> killed and/or replaced with a policy telling people to use RFC 4193 
> ULAs.
> 

RFC 4193 ULAs do not insure global uniqueness, nor do they offer an
outside authority that documents if a given organization has a legitimate
claim to use a specific address in the event of a collision.

We need a mechanism to guarantee global uniqueness between us and our
managed customer networks.

___Jason