[ppml] draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt use cases

[Paul Vixie]

From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>

> ... IMO, ULA-C is the best middle ground we have, and if the folks who think
> it doesn't go far enough aren't willing to support a step in that direction,
> then we'll just have to sit where we're at until there's enough demand for
> liberalized PI.

which ULA-C draft do you mean?  on june 21, IETF published ula-central-02 at
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt> and
it includes text about a 40-bit random number and permanent allocations without
any need for renewal and any procedure for deallocation, and has instructions
to IANA, with expectations that the RIRs will be the IANA's choice of operator
for the "public database".  this doesn't sound like what you're in favour of.

if what you think ought to be done is that FC::/7 should be reserved by IANA
for non-DFZ use and that chunks like /16's ought to be handed to RIR's and
/32's ought to be handed to LIR's and that RIR/LIR fee and qualification
levels ought to be lower for this kind of space so that anyone who wants a
/48 even if it's for their laptop ought to be able to get one and get IN-ADDR
service and have the same WHOIS as normal PI... then you'll have to write that
as an Internet Draft and submit it in competition to central-02.

but i don't think you (scott liebrand) are in favour of central-02 as written
and i know i'm not either.  so it's jarring to hear you say "ULA-C is the best
middle ground we have".  the ULA-C on the table isn't the one you've advocated.