>
>The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
>PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
>around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
>filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going
>to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C
>because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private.
I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re-examine
that statement. Your second statement:
>f you really believe there is going
>to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C
>because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private.
Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of
ULAs now. Filtering it on is already possible (and I heartily encourage
same!). Adding ULA-C doesn't make that easier or harder, and it does nothing
else that would "enforce keeping private space private". None of the
ULA-C proposals I have seen came with a police force or standing army
of clue-bat wielding networking engineers.
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
