[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>> PDP Number: 2007-05
>> IPv6 ULA-Central
>>
>> Dear Colleagues
>>
>> The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been
>> extended until 9 July 2007.
>
> As the IETF is re-addressing this issue at the moment, I suggest that
> until they are done re-analyzing and coming to a conclusion that this
> submission is frozen till that work is done and completed.
>
> There are various suggestions already that it might be very possible
> that IANA directly will provide this service. Next to the more likely
> result that ULA-C won't even exist due to the many concerns raised
> already by various operators in the community.
>
> Please FREEZE this proposal till all that work is done.

Have to agree with Jeroen on this one, stop this proposal until the other 
group working on this issue has come up with a statement/conclusion.

I strongly supported ULA-C in the begging I have now after read through 
tons of arguments and mail-threads, and added some time to rethink it 
changed view, ULA-C is broken without DNS... and if you add DNS you are 
back to start, it is just like any other address space. See Paul Vixie's 
post about the same subject.

ULA-C is from my point of view broken, we don't need it.
It is enough with ULA and UA (unique address, or universal address). The 
last one include what people call PI and PA address space. Those two are 
enough.


Why? ULA is IPv6 version of RFC1918. UA is regular IP addresses, routed or 
not, provided independed or not.



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------