From: Leo Vegoda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The core problem seems to be a very soft definition of "local". If that's > firmed up then there might be a way to convince people that ULA-C can be > restricted to "local" networks and not be used as a way of getting cheaper > PI space, or a way of getting PI space where the RIR doesn't have a policy > supporting its assignment.
i don't see a lot of folks who need to be convinced, mostly just people who are concerned that a lot of other folks aren't convinced. the number of people who have actually said that they themselves aren't convinced is small. but more importantly, we can define "local" any way we want, and we probably will, for the purpose of getting this specification written. but there's no recourse at all by part A if parties B and C decide to "violate" the "local" definition. (nor is there any harm to party A so literally nobody should care about this, yet a lot of folks are terribly concerned about it anyway, i think heinlein called this the "aunt millie syndrome".) so, yes, by all means, let's find a comforting definition for "local", because while it won't matter all in operational practice, it will make a big difference in the general acceptance, dare i say consensus, of the resulting specification. for the record, i am comfortable with the definition of "local" that was quoted here a few weeks back, which was more or less "same autonomous system". (but then, i'd be comfortable with a lot of other definitions, so, let fly!) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
