[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
kkargel at polartel.com
Fri Jun 15 16:13:40 EDT 2007
I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing you can do with ULA-C that you
can't do with PI and a minor firewall rule or two. Leaving the space as
PI gives it either-or capability, putting it as ULA reduces PI. (And
don't talk about 'more PI than we could ever use'.. remember when Mr.
Gates told us you would never need more than 640K of RAM?)(of course he
denies it now..)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org;
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
> > *before*
> > minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't
> point you
> > to a specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN
> > meeting.
> > It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders,
> > that there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and
> people that
> > don't. What you need to be smart here is to realize that those than
> > don't want ULA-C have no any objective reason to oppose to
> it, because
> > implementing ULA-C has no negative impact in others. While
> opposing to
> > it has negative impact to
> > all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the
> function of
> > ULA-C an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.
> You have this backwards. Using PI for the purposes of
> ULA-C is no waste at all. Sectioning off a huge chunk of
> address space for ULA-C is the waste.
> If it's all PI, then, it can seamlessly move between being
> unrouted or routed as the address-holder sees fit and as
> needs change. If it is set aside as ULA, then, the address
> space is forever wasted and cannot (theoretically) be used as
> routable space, no matter how little of it is needed for ULA-C.
> Those of us who oppose ULA-C have what we believe to be
> an objective position that it provides no additional benefit
> over PI space while simultaneously creating some unnecessary
> classification of addresses that makes their status in the
> routing table ill-defined at best. In our opinion, this
> carries the potential for significant consequences globally.
> Just because we do not agree with you does not mean
> that our concerns are not legitimate.
> Do I think UUNET and others should be able to get
> secondary microallocations to solve the problem they
> presented? Absolutely. Do I think that we need to set aside
> a /8, /12, /16, or whatever separate from the rest of PI
> space to do it? No.
> We should just issue them a /48 or whatever it is they need
> from the general pool of available PI space and be done with
> it. No waste at all. No negative consequences to anyone.
> No ambiguous status as to where you can or can't route the
> addresses, etc.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML