This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Thu Jun 7 16:22:34 CEST 2007
* Paul Vixie:
> first, ARIN does not currently consider routability when allocating
> address space. non-routable space comes from ietf/iana, not the RIRs.
> so, for ARIN to start allocating nonroutable space is a big change. we
> would have to define "routable", we could face implied liability for
> routability on "normal address space"
Why? There is a technical difference between the two offerings
(separate address spaces). It seems to me that this criterion is
completely sufficient. It's up to the requestor to decide which type
they need, and to make sure that the meet the published requirements.
On the other hand, the IPv6 address space is so large that any entity
can pick some prefix and use it to implement its own ULA registry. If
there is real demand for such a service, that demand itself will make
sure that the prefix won't be used for any other purpose. (".local."
could be seen as a counter-example, but I believe the initial problems
have been fixed by now.)
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]