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(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf