Thus spake <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com>
The fact that the filtering recommendations of ULA-C and ULA-G
have the same flaws as RFC 1918 is a not sufficient reason to
reject them wholesale.
Actually, the flaws are different because ULA-C/G leaks will not collide
with each other. This means that, unlike RFC1918 which is _impossible_ for
ISPs to route for multiple customers, ULA-C/G routes _can_ be routed
publicly. Any prohibition on doing so by the IETF or RIRs can (and IMHO,
will) be overridden by customers paying for those routes to be accepted.
The IETF has zero enforcement capability.
Since some RIRs have PI, the odds of that happening have been reduced (which
was a major motivation for PI being accepted), but many folks who are asking
for ULA-C/G are ones that do not qualify under current PI policies and/or
are served by RIRs that haven't adopted PI at all.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf