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

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
<snip>
>
> 	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.

I am in favour of ULA-C and I belive we have a very good use-case for it 
where I work, but, there is a huge but there. Without global DNS, that is 
possibility to have reverse DNS for our ULA-C addresses it is completly 
useless for our cause. And with DNS you get into other complication and in 
the end you get something called ULA-C which ain't too different from PI 
space at all.

So my conclusion on this is quite simple, it would be nice to have ULA-C 
but I dont belive there is any point it wasting time on it anymore. Get a 
decent PI policy in place that let those that need IP addresses get it 
and we're done.



-- 

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