[arin-ppml] ULA-C

Buhrmaster, Gary gtb at slac.stanford.edu
Wed Apr 7 18:24:06 EDT 2010

> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Engel
> David Farmer wrote:
> > I believe, the stewardship the RIRs provide is necessary, and
> > the RIRs'
> > policy processes can properly manage the risk.  As for cost,
> > while not a
> > policy matter, in the shorter-term ULA-C is not going to be as cost
> > effective as some would hope.  However, if in the longer-term
> > the risks
> > can be managed, then I have to believe that the RIRs will do
> > the right
> > thing.
> However, I can see the value in ULA-C for some Enterprises...
> and you'll definitely get some buy in there..even with
> significant fee's. I wouldn't have any problem fee/justification
> wise if ULA-C was treated identically to PI. The only caveat
> should be that justification for ULA-C shouldn't count
> against justification for PA/PI... you should be able to get
> both types of addresses for the same device. The real value of
> ULA-C (IMO) is the understanding that it's not supposed to be globally
> routed. Yes, that's enforced by convention only...but that's no
> different then pretty much anything else on the internet.

I agree.

I can see an argument that if the price for ULA-C *is* the same as PI
there would be little advantage for an organization to try to get
ULA-C as an end-run for "cheap" GUA.  Only those that understand ULA-C
and want the current and future restrictions (not globally routed)
are likely to choose it.  There will be such organizations.  I would
like to see ARIN be able to serve them.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list