On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Jorgensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are we even talking about ULA-C now? What you want is
nicely covered
by ULA... not ULA-C but regular plain stright forward ULA.
Largely, but not completely. Think in terms of large platforms that have
several different networks, administered by different entities, but
easily isolated from The Internet or even a larger intranet. ULA-Cs are
convenient to route within the platform, with the knowledge that they
can easily be filtered at edge routers because they are easy to spot.
that is a good description of the network where I work and as I said in my
last post, ULA-C would work great IF we had reverse DNS...
Just like before, with site-local addresses, I'm sure this can be worked
around, no matter what the decision is. Having to go to a RIR and ask
for PIs is a possibility, although what's nice about ULA-Cs is exactly
that you don't have to go to ask anything of anyone!
we need some sort of semi-official, semi-accepted as official registry
runned by someone like the SIXXS registry Jeroen have put up... IF we make
people "belive" they have to register there, and that site also generate
ULA prefixes... isn't that ULA-C in a semi-official way?
I'm more and more convince that ULA-C will be a great big hack that will
hunt us forever... sad.
--
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
