Brian sez:
Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
be globally routed,
imo - much wishful thinking
My point is simply that what we say about DNS should be compatible with what we say about routing.
also imo - this whole idea is a clear and present danger to the Internet (assuming that IPv6 gets general deployment)
I disagree. The risk of these non-aggregatable prefixes appearing in the default-free BGP4 table in exchange for lots of money is the same as the risk of *any* longer prefix from PA space doing so. The danger exists as long as rich enterprises are willing to pay for routeability. There are other things we are doing (renumbering procedures, multi6, the NAP draft) to try and deflect this danger, but ULAs don't increase it.
Brian
Scott
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
