[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> writes:

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they cou=
> ld
> > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
> > infrastructure's.

> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.

Maybe the assertion came from those who supported ARIN Policy Proposal
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
(http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), where using a /48
out of their aggregate did not solve the technical problem at hand.

At that time, the question was raised whether ULA-P solved the problem
adequately. The answer I heard was a very clear "no". And ULA-C (if
had existed then) would have.

Thomas