[arin-ppml] ULA-C

Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Wed Mar 31 21:29:53 EDT 2010

On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> I believe there is a consensus building at least here on PPML that ULA-C and PI should be thought of from a policy sense as identical, other than ULA-C is by convention not routed.

ULA-L and ULA-C should not cross administrative boundaries without the administration's express consent.

I'm all for that; ULAs become the basis for a GSE world. GSE means that the edge networks have prefixes that give them reasonable multihoming and the appearance (independence, relative simplicity, multihoming, etc) of PI while the ISPs experience the impact on their tables of PA. In addition, any device on the net can address a packet to any other device on the net, unlike today's NAT world; one uses security and routing solutions to fix that, rather than being delude by the marketing of NAT as a security solution.

There are of course some issues, which one hopes folks would be smart enough to use ILNP to get around.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list