IANA already manages things like enterprise-id numbers. And, then there's the existing IPv4 address space (how many assigned addresses are returned or reclaimed?).
While ULA's could potentially be used by a much larger number of entities, they may also not be used except by larger organizations. Do you think your average home user or small business would need a ULA? Would they know to get one? Would they have the knowledge to manage it? So, I think this "property rights" issue FUD. Of course, a system like domain name registration where there is a small annual fee to retain a ULA-C does have merit as it pays for the registration system and assures that someone has to pay to renew the assignment. So, if company A buys company B and both have ULA-C's, company A may decide to let company B's ULA-C expire after a year or two since there may no longer be a need for it. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:05 AM To: Bill Manning Cc: Brian Haberman; Ipv Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft On 2007-06-08 17:15, Bill Manning wrote: > presuming this course of action is taken, it raises a much larger > issue consisting of the IETF creating "property rights" in the > address space arena. I decline to take the issue of property rights seriously in a pseudo-random space of 2**40 natural numbers. I *would* recommend that the robot be hosted by a trusted organization. > To date, (AFAIK) most legal arguments have > taken the line that IP addresses are NOT property, come from a > common resource that the RIR's administer for the good of the > community. ULA-C carves out a bit of IP space and in the absence > of RIR oversight, creates "property"... creating an ambigious > set of legal issues which will be fought for years. IMHO it's just not going to happen, in the absence of scarcity. > > I -REALLY- am uncomfortable w/ the IETF, in a mothballed WG, As others have pointed out, the fact that this WG isn't currently meeting f2f is irrelevant. Of course, the debate should include the entire community, which is why this list is open. > creating this nightmare for the operational community. Since ULAs aren't routable, I don't see it. If we were talking about routable PI, it would be a different matter. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
