[arin-ppml] ULA-C

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 12 22:02:59 EDT 2010

On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:41 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> No transit provider in the world accepts those routes and assuming that
>>> such traffic would have to traverse at least three networks
>>> (originating, at least one transit and the destination), having all
>>> three misconfigured is quite unlikely.
>> And yet, time and time again, they show up in the routing tables.
> Owen,
> So what? You can kill them with three lines in your filter if they
> bother you. As can I. As can anyone who cares. And a ULA-C will be
> even easier: just one line to suppress the whole mess.
The discussion was about whether RFC-1918/ULA provide a security
benefit or could be accidentally advertised.

My point is that they can and are.

> Are you so insecure about ARIN's ability to satisfy IPv6 GUA users
> that you think those users will do what it takes to pressure the
> network operators into reliably carrying ULA as if it was GUA? You
> shouldn't be. ARIN does fine.
Not at all.  I'm not opposed to ULA implemented in a non-harmful way.

I am opposed to perpetuating the myth that it somehow enhances


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list