On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I >> don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the >> potential for abouse. > If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm twisting > and bulling will stop it. > Right... It's a toxic chemical. No matter how much we may end up wishing we could, we probably can't uninvent it at this point. Regardless, I won't encourage and will actively discourage its use.
> There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it seems > silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I fully expect to see > protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage of ULA. I > also expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public internet directly and > never need a GUA. > I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. Owen
