Is the goal of this document merely to define the ULA-C address range
well enough to throw it into the lake and see if it sinks or swims? Or
is there some requirement to provide a more workable form of site-
local
addresses?
The central ULA's should to be viewed in contrast to the currently
defined locally assigned ULAs (RFC4193). They share almost all of
the properties except for the degree of uniqueness (and, of course,
the ability to self-generate the prefix). Central ULA's are
guranteed to be unique vs. locally assigned ULA have a very high
probability of uniqueness. Centrally assigned ULA's are for
organizations that need an absolute guarantee of uniqueness, not just
a very high probability. This applies to large enterprises who want
to use these internally and for private connections to other
enterprises, and for usage currently being discussed in the RIR
community.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
