Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> What I'm asking, of course, is this:
>>> Is there *anything* unique to ULA that is not possible to implement with
>>> PI allocations by RIRs?
>>
>> not really no. Except that real end-users like your brother can get
>> ULA-C cheap but maybe have to pay a bit more for PI.
> 
> ULA-C and PI space will likely both cost about the same, and your
> brother could likely afford either.  The issue isn't so much dollar cost
> as availability: your brother likely doesn't qualify for PI space
> (unless he can justify efficient use of a /22), but he could get ULA-C
> just by asking.

Wow, a /22 IPv6 space, that is a big chunk. But I assume you mean /22
IPv4. What has IPv4 to do with IPv6 and moreover why is that ARIN policy
 being forced upon the IETF thus leading to ULA-C and then leading to
heavily hinting ARIN to provide ULA-C as a way out.

Clearly ULA-C is just "cheap address space", nothing more nothing less.
And the sole reason for a possible existence seems to be that the
policies in RIR land do not allow everybody to get address space the way
they want to. Instead of changing the RIR policies, ULA-C gets invented.

Which is also what you write in the 2 emails before this one, but in
between the lines.

The RIR community effectively blocks people from getting address space
on the premise that "but that costs routing slots", even though the
minimum allocation is /48 either way, and then on top of that basing
that decision on IPv4 address space usage, wow.

I think that ULA-C is a really really bad idea because of this.

But I'll let other people figure that out, I've clearly spoken my mind
about this already. I do hope that other people see this too.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to