FYI --
I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
direction) that I've missed.
Thanks,
Margaret
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 11, 2007 10:16:15 PM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-00
A new version of I-D, draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-00.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Margaret Wasserman and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename: draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis
Revision: 00
Title: An Analysis of Centrally Assigned Unique Local Addresses
Creation_date: 2007-11-12
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 8
Abstract:
There has been discussion within the IETF IPv6 community for some
time regarding whether or not to define Centrally Assigned Unique
Local Addresses (ULA-Cs). Although many arguments both for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs have been raised and repeated, our
discussions have not resulted in consensus about whether or not to
define this new address type. This document will summarize the
arguments for and against the allocation of ULA-Cs, in an attempt to
help the IETF IPv6 community reach a decision on this issue.
The IETF Secretariat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
