On 2007-07-09 13:58, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
Now I do see another use for this kind of address space, but then it
should not be called this way. It could be used for ID/LOC solutions,
where these kind of addresses are Explicit-non-DFZ addresses. But if
that is the reason for what folks want to use them, as that is what I am
sort of reading between the lines as actual real usage has still not
been identified, then please just state that.
I believe that ULA-G as proposed by Paul is an interesting candidate
for unrouteable EIDs in the sense that the LISP proposal defines "EID".
But that conversation belongs on another list.
However, if we're worried about keeping /48s out of the DFZ, I agree
that it really doesn't matter whether they're called "PI", "ULA",
"2002::/48" or simply /48 holes in PA prefixes. It's the ISPs who
will keep them out, or let them in, not the IETF.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
