kkargel at polartel.com
Thu Apr 1 16:12:48 EDT 2010
> I believe what ever the policy is it should be the same as for PI
> A fundamental tenant of the consensus that I think is developing is if
> the policy for PI and ULA-C are essentially the same, then ULA-C can be
> implemented without much risk of abuse. If ULA-C is easier to get or
> maintain, or even if it is only perceived as such, there is a risk of
I will buy in to that.
On a global level I can see that if many people want ULA-C I guess it won't hurt anything so long as it doesn't start finding it's way to the global routing table. Even if it shows up in local peer routing tables it is pretty benign.
The danger I see with ULA peer relationships is that if I advertise my ULA-* to a peer for private uses I have no control over my peers BGP policies and they may through design or neglect advertise my ULA to their peers, which would/could pollute the global table. This could get *me* in trouble through no fault of my own.
On a local (personal)level I just don't see the need for dedicated ULA pools when anyone can roll their own ULA-* out of their GUA.
My interpretation is that ULA-ish GUA consumption would count toward utilization requirements, so it would not handicap further allocation requests. Perhaps I am wrong on this one.
More information about the ARIN-PPML