RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf at tndh.net>]

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Lixia,
> 
> > I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
> > understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived
> > difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see,
> > does not exist.
> >
> > Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by
> > whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is
> > labeled.
> 
> Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling
> may not correspond to what is actually done with
> it.

If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if
you don't want them. 

The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going
to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C
because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private.

Tony




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