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