On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:39:19 -0800 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ULA is LOCAL. > > It has nothing to do with PI. > > People need address space to number the links between their SQL and > web servers. This is completely orthogonal to address space used on > the internet. > It also seems to me that a common assumption in this debate, by people who consider IPv6 to just be IPv4 with bigger addresses, is that if you have ULA addressing on a interface, you can't have global addresses as well. IOW, they're either not aware or forgetting that IPv6 is fully designed to properly support multiple prefixes on an interface, rather than it being somewhat of a hack that works under IPv4, but not with things like DHCPv4. I think that then warps their perspective on whether ULAs might become PI (should an appropriate routing technology come along), or whether NAT in IPv6 is necessary for global Internet access if you use ULAs. > If it's routed at some point, this means we're all getting enough > money to change our minds on the merits of routing unroutable space so > by definition, we'll be happy with that. > > And again: keep the RIRs out of this, this has nothing to do with > their current business. > Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
