[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a ULA bit or two to play with in the BGP
announcements?  Then everyone could define their own..
 
I know this is facetious and not a serious consideration, but it was an
interesting thought..
 
 


________________________________

	From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Roque Gagliano
	Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:57 AM
	To: Randy Bush
	Cc: Thomas Narten; ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
	Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
	
	
	more "practical" questions: 
	why should they be cheaper than PI block? do they take less
administrative work form RIR? do they take less "space" in their
databases? 

	in many RIRs you need to pay a "membership" fee and doing so you
get the right to vote in their members meetings, if you get an ULA-C
allocation, should you be considered a member? would you pay your
membership fee to the RIR? again, why should this allocation be cheaper
that a PI allocation?

	Roque


	On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Randy Bush wrote:


			Should ULA-C be published in the Whois database?
what about reverse DNS
			for them, should they be delegated or just reply
a NXDOMAIN?


		let's see.  ula-c should be assigned and tracked by
rirs.  they should
		have whois and in-addr.arpa.  do remind me how they
differ from pi
		space.  i keep forgetting.

		randy


	
	-------------------------------------------------------------
	Roque Gagliano
	ANTEL - URUGUAY
	rgaglian at antel.net.uy




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070607/2a35057c/attachment.html>