On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:08, Roland Bless <roland.bl...@kit.edu> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> On 27.09.2011 23:28, David Farmer wrote:
>> I'm warming to the idea.  However if we do something like this for the
>> manufacturing world we better move forward normal ULA-C for the
> 
> The current ULA-C has the problem of allocating /48s. A manufacturer
> would have to request many of them and the fixed 16-bit subnet ID
> structure given in the spec isn't suitable for many of these applications.
> 
>> enterprise guys that want ULA otherwise you will quickly burn through
>> your 21 - bit OUI. It won't just be manufactures that use this form of
> 
> For OUI exhaustion I don't agree. The currently public OUI assigned
> numbers of IEEE are around 16.000. Maybe this isn't directly comparable,
> but provides at least a rough estimate.

Yes, OUI exhaustion isn't and shouldn't be a problem unless we make it one.

My point was if you implement your proposal without doing a more classic ULA-C 
also, you will create demand for OUIs from the enterprise world just so they 
can get registered ULAs.  There are not enough OUIs to satisfy that demand, and 
it would be a waste, too.

So if you do an ULA-M you need to also do ULA-C to prevent those that would be 
happy with ULA-C from consuming vast numbers of OUIs only for the purpose of 
obtaining ULA.

>> ULA (how about ULA-M, for ULA-Manufacturing) if it is created without a
>> more standard ULA-C available for the enterprise guys.
> 
> Yep, regards
> Roland


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking&  Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to