[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[Kevin Loch]

mack wrote:

> People wanting IPv6 NAT should be given the tools to do so.
> I don't want it but there are people that do.

Ok but what part of IPv6 NAT requires ULA-C instead of ULA-L or globally
unique addresses?  NAT is just translation and addresses are "private"
or not depending on who you announce them to and how you filter at your
borders.   RFC's don't make addresses private, engineers do.

The illusion of security benefits from RFC1918 space is largely a side
effect of the extreme non-uniqueness of it. The goals of "private"
addressing and guaranteed uniqueness might not be compatible.


- Kevin