[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Paul Vixie]

> yeah...and I still wonder...if that is more a fear than anything.  I would
> like to think the community has learned some leassons.  And then there was
> always the counter debate that the number of true offenders was small but
> they were just large offenders.  Which makes me wonder why they arnt just
> publicly humiliated into doing things right.  And I question, if they would
> do the same thing with ULA or actually use that one right with all the
> publicity its gotten.

relevance in competition among internet carriers depends on reachability, and
so if someone somewhere announces a ULA-C (or ULA-G, which is my own version)
and if a small-but-critical mass of other carriers accepts that announcement,
then anyone anywhere who doesn't also have that route would lose business.  i
don't like the system but i don't know how to change it, short of some kind of
micropayment-for-route-slot system that we also don't know how to deploy in a
capital based system.

the tyranny of the core will apparently be with us for ever and ever, and the
kind of ad-hoc MANET that could reduce pressure on the DFZ will only come into
existence if someone other than the existing I* organizations puts together an
ad-hoc central registry for things like in-addr and whois, based on RFC 4193
("ULA") prefixes.

(it's a triple-indirect assymetric value proposition, the first i've studied.)