4.2. Wrong Way to Influence Registry Policy It has been argued that it is inappropriate and/or ineffective for the IETF to attempt to influence address registration policies through the publication of an RFC that creates a new address space with defined registration policies.
That does not, however, mean that the IETF shouldn't reserve a specific prefix for this usage if the consensus is that this is the correct thing to do, technically and architecturally. I think we agree that the IETF shouldn't attempt to constrain *how* the space under that prefix is administered, but that is a separate question.
There is no technical advantage, and there may be some architectural disadvantages (see Section 4.3), to allocating a prefix for globally unique addresses with specific registration policies.
Setting aside the architectural argument, I think this second sentence is wrong. There *is* a technical argument for having a globally defined prefix for ULA-C, and furthermore for having it adjacent to the prefix for regular ULA: so that equipment and software can be configured by default to filter ULAs. You may argue that this is a weak argument, but it exists. Nit in section 1:
Locally Assigned ULAs are generated within the local enterprise, either by the network administrator or by a piece of networking equipment, using a random number generator. These addresses are probabilistically unique, in the sense that it is extremely unlikely that there will be an overlap within any reasonably small number of Centrally Assigned ULA prefixes.
s/Centrally/Locally/ Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------