[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon Sep 17 12:21:31 EDT 2007

>  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.

As an ARIN AC member, I would have thought that you would take the time
to understand the technology that you were talking about, ESPECIALLY
when you talk about applying punitive measures.

Let me reword this. It is JUST PLAIN STUPID to suggest that we should
publicly humiliate people who use ULA addressing. ULA was created by the
IETF to address the need for addressing private interfaces which are
never intended to communicate outside a particular network. There is
nothing wrong with using ULA addresses.

As for ULA-C, this is something which does not exist. There are at least
two different proposals for something which may or may not be what
people think of as ULA-C. The IETF is rechartering the ipv6 working
group and one of the work items in that charter is to resolve what to do
about ULA-C and the various proposals. It is entirely possible that the
IETF will create something called ULA-C which is not at all like what
you think it is. If you care about this, I suggest that you should join
the WG, read the drafts, comment on them, or write your own draft.

But it is premature to be promoting punitive measures on the ARIN PPML.

And for the record, I don't care what hat you were wearing when you made
that comment, I will not be voting for your re-election to the AC.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. If you are still confused about ULA then read RFC 4193

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list