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

[Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>]

Ted Hardie wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re-examine
> that statement.  Your second statement:

From my point of view, ULA-C differs from 4193 because I presume a ULA-C 
will give me whois and reverse DNS.

I've been told that sixxs.net is doing whois, but I have to know to ask
whois.sixxs.net for the information.
Delegating c.f.ip6.arpa to sixxs.net would also be required for me to take 
4193 seriously. (And d.f.ip6.arpa..)

I am very happy to use a ULA for my needs, and a PA for the part of my 
network that needs to talk to outside my AS.



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