Thomas Narten wrote: > Tony, > > Could you provide some background on: > > 1) why reissue this document at this time > > 2) what has changed in the document relative to previous versions? > > Finally, IMO, based on previous discussions, this document is/was > effectively dead. There has always been a lot of controversy with > C-ULAs, and there simply hasn't been consensus to move the document > forward. What has changed since the last time the WG had a discussion > about ULAs? Is there some new information we should be considering? > > I do not think it is particularly useful (or pleasant) to have a > replay of old positions on this topic, if in fact, no minds will > change. So unless there is a compelling reason to revisit C-ULAs at > this time, I'm not at all sure we need to have this discussion yet > again.
The RIRs have collectively developed PI allocation policies, where lack of those was the primary source for complaints before. Second enterprises are becoming more aware, and really - really - really believe they need private space, no matter what the outside world thinks is 'right'. M&A worries make ULA-L inappropriate, and fighting with an RIR over private use of a PI prefix is not something they want to do. Bottom line, this is a hole in the address architecture that needs to be filled. There is no reason for the IETF to dictate to others what they can do in their private network. The only thing this document is doing is setting up the range, as actual implementation and policies related to registration are delegated to the allocation authority. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
