[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> 
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 19:00, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
>> Also that avoids any need for ULA-C as everybody is covered.
> 
>     Non sequitur.
> 
>     Your conclusion may be true; unless you choose to expose your
>     logic, it is unproven, and may even be just wishful thinking.
> 
>     I'ld really like to see a conclusion (for or against, I don't
>     care) about ULA-C which didn't involve religious convictions.
>     That probably belongs in another thread.

Although the latin/greek/whatever might look impressive in writing, can
you actually describe what you are wanting to say? A comment with actual
content really helps.

See the various other discussions about ULA-C and the amount of
questions that have been raised and remain unanswered and start tapping
into that and answering them, then we can proceed with that part. Upto
now those questions remain open and as such there actually is not even a
real case at all why such space should exist, except for some people
wanting to have "really cheap PI" space for vaguely defined examples.

And that case can be solved by what Gert proposed, thus then there
really is no need any more for ULA-C.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070627/6567ff88/attachment.sig>