> At this point it is plain to see that ULA-C is nothing but PI > address space, because the IETF is in no position to enforce > otherwise. So please, let's just call it what it is.
The IETF is not in a position to enforce the special handling of ULA-C addresses however, IANA via the RIRs is in such a position. The C in ULA-C refers to a central registry. It is likely that IANA will appoint the RIRs to handle that function. Since the RIRs only allocate numbers to organizations who sign a contract with the RIR, this places the RIR in a legal position to enforce any special rules that may be attached to ULA-C addresses. The IETF can state its intent that ULA-C address ranges should not be announced on the Internet or routed across the Internet outside of tunneling technologies. The RIRs can then enforce that intent. If the membership of the RIRs decide that it is valuable to allow ULA-C addresses to be used on the Internet and that they can handle the increase of entries in the global routing table, then those members can collectively override the IETF's intent. Essentially, the IETF is placing control over the route announcement question in the hands of those who are actually impacted by the question. If there is any dispute over the specifics of how this is handled, the RIRs are the forum in which it should be worked out. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
