Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:08:21 +0100

> Oddly enough, what I recommend for now is - put ULA-C on the 
> back burner.

I generally agree with what Brian has said here and I especially support
his recommendation to push this to the backburner and let it stew for a
while. We really need more clarity on use-cases for this before going
further. And, we need to get a broader perspective, i.e. more people
looking at the issues.

> Make travel plans to attend the next IANA meeting, and in the 
> meantime, join the IANA mailing lists. Voice your concern 
> over PI space issues, and the making available of small PI 
> blocks to all comers.

In particular, the whole issue of PI versus ULA-C has not been clearly
stated. What does ULA-C bring to the table that cannot be done with PI
addresses? If the answer is nothing, then ULA-C is not needed at all.

--Michael Dillon

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:37:04 +0000

> > Make travel plans to attend the next IANA meeting, and in the meantime,
> > join the IANA mailing lists. Voice your concern over PI space issues, and
> > the making available of small PI blocks to all comers.

aside from the fact that iana doesn't have meetings or mailing lists, i note
that icann (iana's current corporate parent) doesn't set PI policy, that's a
regional thing.  iana does what ietf tells it.  rir's do what their members
tell them.  so, the above advice is a total multiple nonsequitur.

> addresses?  If the answer is nothing, then ULA-C is not needed at all.

thus far, rir community input has been "don't make me by 2-megaroute routers"
and the end result is policies that prohibit "PI for everybody".  ula-c is
an attempt to placate those communities while still offering unique address
space to everybody.  that's been stated, clearly, here and on ppml@.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:24:09 +0200

Brian D,

On 2007-06-29 20:47, [email-masked] wrote:

...
> I think that ULA has come about as an answer to the need for IPv6 space,
> which does not have procedural overhead or cost (both of which occur when
> requesting space from RIRs).

There are more motivations than that - the ability to generate a ULA
prefix automatically, for example, allows a zero-config disconnected
network to come up with a valid prefix that could in fact be used
for ad-hoc routing with a neighbour. And there are lots of enterprise
scenarios where private address space is highly desired.

Without regard to what is decided about ULA-C, I think ULA is here
to stay.

    Brian C