Hi David, On 28.09.2011 20:24, David Farmer wrote: > 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.
I see your point now and agree. My intent was not to replace ULA-Cs, but to propose something that fits more the intended use cases. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
