Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>]

Paul Vixie wrote:
> without a consensus on what it means "to harm", we're sort of stuck.  ULA-G
> (and therefore ULA-C) would allow consenting adults to exchange routes using
> the whois and in-addr infrastructure that has historically been reserved for
> "public networking".
>   

Without going into debate about consenting adults, and while I might 
disagree with Paul in certain fine points, I'd suggest that we consider 
the ULA-G proposal within the IETF and ask that Paul submit it as an 
I-D.  ULA-G could have broad application if in fact we solve the 
multihoming problem (IMHO) and I'd like to be the optimist and say that 
we can do that.

Eliot

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