> Paul's draft which assigns 12 bits to each RIR seems to be the right > thing since it clearly delineates which RIR is responsible for each > subset range, and therefore if an RIR policy dictates special handling > for certain ULA addresses, there is a simple technical means to > accomplish this.
it's expected that iana will hand out blocks of 100 RIR-sized ULA-G blocks to each RIR, similar to how ASN blocks are assigned, just to save paperwork. but yes, since each RIR will have its own chunks of this space, they can do whatever their regional member-driven policy development process tells them to do as far as carving it up and handing it out to LIRs, endusers, etc. > I'm not sure what the status of Paul's document is since the drafts > directory only contains this one: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > Is Paul's superceding that or is there a merge in process? the other authors of ula-global have not commented on my hijackery. they might be supportive, or angry, or complacent, about the draft-fork i made. maybe they'll want their names removed. maybe they'll want to merge ula-g into ula-c and have my name removed. maybe they'll want the fork to stay. the i-d editor determined that my submission came after the chicago cutoff, which really oughtn't apply for WG's that are not meeting, but so it goes. the WG chairs have ignored my mail thus far. so my take is, suggested changes and statements of opposition||support can be made based on the text at http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt. i'll be rev'ing the draft based on james' and scott's comments shortly. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
