[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Well, now that you say it, I heard that there was also a very direct
pressure on top of the IESG. If that was the case, it was nasty and the IESG
did wrong allowing an "out-of-band" interference in the IETF process,
because all that should have gone to the WG.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
> Responder a: <narten at us.ibm.com>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:46:48 -0400
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
> 
>> What failed previously ... IESG can say, I only have hints, and points to
>> something not good in my opinion, but I don't want to talk here about
>> something that I don't know completely.
> 
> What "failed" is that the IETF was fairly close to approving the ULA-C
> approach, but at one ARIN meeting, there was an uproar over the
> idea. The IETF then dropped the idea because it just seemed too
> painful to continue pushing on it at the time (there was a message
> sent to the IPng mailing list when this happened, and the WG agreed,
> but it would take some digging to find the exact message). Plus, the
> IETF had by then approved probalistically-unique ULAs (RFC 4193) which
> took off much of the pressure for ULA-C. So there was a feeling that
> we should just drop the ULA-C approach and see what happened. Even
> then it was felt that it could be resurrected, if the RFC 4193 proved
> to be insufficient in practice.
> 
> Thomas




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.