Joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote:
|> Jeroen Massar <jer...@unfix.org> wrote:
|>
|> |On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
|> |> Hi Brian,
|> |>
|> |> Am 28.09.2011 23:07, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
|> |>> On 2011-09-28 23:08, Roland Bless wrote:
|> |>> ...
|> |>>> The current ULA-C...
|> |>>
|> |>> What do you mean? There is no current definition of ULA-C.
|> |>
|> |> That's right :-)
|> |> I was referring to the definition in RFC 4193 with L=0, i.e.,
|> |> centrally assigned ULAs. I know that the registry and assignment
|> |> procedure for ULA-C are not defined yet, but the basic format will be
|> |> the same as in RFC 4193. The few I-D proposals for ULA-Cs seemed
|> |> to suggest allocating /48s and not larger address blocks and I could
|> |> very well imagine, that this will be the case if we ever define ULA-Cs.
|> |
|> |You do realize that the RIRs are providing exactly what you describe? :)
|>
|> Except that RIRs generally charge a high rent for those addresses and/or
|> impose constraints on how they can be used. ULAs were supposed to be a
|> replacement for site local addresses, available to anyone for any purpose.
|
|Even a cursory glance at RFC 4193 would cause you to conclude that they
|are not in fact to be used for any purpose.
Rather than taking a cursory glance at RFC4193 I suggest that you take a
more detailed look at the discussion surrounding the deprecation of site
local addresses and the (supposed) superior replacement in the form of ULAs.
That the promise of ULAs was never fulfilled is unfortunate but completely
predictable (and in fact I predicted it at the time) given the financial
model of global address rental.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
