On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:21 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > The question here still remains though: how really different is this > from "PI". In effect it is non-DFZ-PI space that is being defined here. > RIR's themselves could thus also set aside a /20 or something and > allocate /40-/48's from that block for that purpose and state "currently > these might be routable, but in the future they will not be". > Which is quite less of an addressing burn than this. >
It's much easier/faster to identify any ULA-space (FC00::/7) in one comparison than having to match individual (possibly variable) RIR-ranges (for filtering etc). Especially if/when such algorithms are implemented in silicon for enhanced performance. //per -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
