[ppml] Difference between ULA-C and PI

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> 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