[ppml] Why ULA-* will not harm the DFZ

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > Either participate in the IETF WG or step aside and let 
> others do that.
> > But please don't cross-post between the PPML and an IETF WG. The 
> > discussion belongs in one place or the other, not both.
> > 
> > Given that the IETF is working through 2 or 3 variations of 
> > ULA-centrally-registered at the moment, it does not seem worth our 
> > while to discuss this on PPML.
> 
> this is a crock.  ULA is policy, not technology, and the ivtf 
> is supposed to stay the bleep out of policy and operations.  
> it's the ivory tower "this is the way the net should run" stuff again.

As I said, the IETF is *WORKING THROUGH* 2 or 3 variations. They may end
up dropping the whole thing. Or the final draft that comes out might be
quite different from what was first proposed by a certain vocal person
on this list. The point is, that ULA-C doesn't exist until IANA
allocates the address range and that doesn't happen until the IETF
publishes an RFC.

The IETF defines technology, it does not mandate that anyone use the
technology. There are lots of ghost towns in the RFC collection.

--Michael Dillon