On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > 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.
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why such an address-block must be tagged 'special'. If the IETF wants to provide guidance to the policy-process such should be no stronger than BCPs (like rfc1918), not technical standards (rfc4193). The regional registries, through the ICANN/ASO and IANA, may or may not choose to implement policies that support some form of ULA. There's no need for the IETF to dictate that process. Also consider the signals such standards communicate to manufacturers. Misleading standards and policies have led vendors to introduce artificial limitations in hardware and software in the past (example: 240/4). Do we really want that? //per -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
