On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 11:39 -0800, Iljitsch van Beijnum 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. > > 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.
Let's pull the IETF out of policy instead, and be happy to focus on technical matters ;) To do so may even prove crucial to maintain IETF as a technical authority in the longer term. By that I mean that the IETF shouldn't be involved in address distribution matters unless there's technical reason for it, and ULA does IMHO not qualify as such. Any randomly selected address-block can be either routable or useless on the internet depending on what the operational policies are, regardless of what the IETF says. It doesn't matter what it is called. IETF shouldn't even care. Existing RFCs that deal with local-addressing (in the context of "private addresses") for v6 are really unnecessary, and should at least be changed from technical standards to BCPs (in line with rfc1918). The days when the only way to form global policies for IANA was through the IETF are over. If there's a need for global allocation of addresses for special purposes those needs should be communicated to the ICANN ASO (or whatever that'll be in the future if the UN-IGF gets their way) which in turn will request IANA to make an appropriate allocation. In practise that would require the RIR-communities (not to be confused with the operational units who handle the registration process) to pass unified requests for a global policy to the ASO. IANA may later choose to delegate coordination tasks for ULA-G/C/whatever back to RIR-operations, but that's just another practical issue the IETF doesn't need to bother with. //per -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
