RE: IANA registration constraints (was: Re: Withdrawingsponsorship...)

[<michael.dillon at bt.com>]

> We would at last have a mechanism to trump the usual claim 
> that an internet draft has been submitted so please consider 
> me as good as being a standard.

ULA-C was in a draft that has expired and was in fact specifically
dropped by the WG that produced the ULA RFC. Nevertheless, at least one
person believes that means ULA-C is as good as being a standard and has
asked the RIRs to begin operating a registry for ULA-C addresses.
 
> Or another organization could run the registry.

Well, if you want a centrally-registered ULA prefix that is globally
unique, you can get one from this registry:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/

NOTE: this is not the same as ULA-C, this is a central registry of
pseudo-randomnly generated ULAs as defined in RFC 4193.

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf