> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: The purpose of ULA-G/C
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Not to pick on James&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to pick on James' post, but several have mentioned that
large routing realms would be one reason to require ULA-G/C
and it has not yet been suggested that the reverse DNS could
itself be thought of as a "large routing realm" of sorts
(depending on how applications use
> Not to pick on James' post, but several have mentioned that
> large routing realms would be one reason to require ULA-G/C
> and it has not yet been suggested that the reverse DNS could
> itself be thought of as a "large routing realm" of sorts
> (depending on how applications use the information
> Look, if we want to enable the operation of "very large local DFZ"
> routing realms (in the hundreds of thousands or millions of
> networks)
> and we're really, really concerned about accidental leakage of local
> prefixes into the DFZ with PI addressing, then I can understand the
> moti
james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 10, 2007, at 18:15, Scott Leibrand wrote:
I might suggest we say that "They are intended for use in
pre-arranged interconnection between organizations and sites in local
routing realms ranging in scale from small to very large."
I like that better, yes. I suppo
On Jul 10, 2007, at 18:15, Scott Leibrand wrote:
I might suggest we say that "They are intended for use in pre-
arranged interconnection between organizations and sites in local
routing realms ranging in scale from small to very large."
I like that better, yes. I suppose we needn't tell pe
james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 10, 2007, at 15:33, Scott Leibrand wrote:
[...]
As stated previously, the rules for getting PI space are based on the
expectation that PI blocks can be announced into the DFZ. The
proposed rules for ULA-G space are based on the expectation that
ULA-G blocks will
On Jul 10, 2007, at 15:33, Scott Leibrand wrote:
[...]
As stated previously, the rules for getting PI space are based on
the expectation that PI blocks can be announced into the DFZ. The
proposed rules for ULA-G space are based on the expectation that
ULA-G blocks will not be announced in
e risk of collision rises to a level of any real
significance.
Perhaps you haven't read or understood what I've written previously.
The purpose of ULA-G is to allow RIRs to allocate private address space
in a non-discriminatory manner to organizations who wish to use it
outside of t
