[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)

Not at all. However, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes to work in
parallel. In fact it has been done before.

The block is already reserved also by the RFC4193.

Last, but not least, we have already been there. All the 4-bytes ASN policy
proposals had been developed while it was still I-D work.

We can perfectly be in the situation that we move ahead with this from the
policy perspective, but RFC is not yet there, and then we either wait for
implementation to have the RFC or work in a global policy to "replace" the
lack of an RFC.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:41:10 +0100
> Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Conversación: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6
> ULA-Central)
> Asunto: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)
> 
>> This draft (ula-central-01) is already being updated.
>> 
>> The policy proposes to act as one of the central (consider one of the
>> draft
>> options "central but distributed in several entities", take that as
> one or
>> several RIRs) registries.
> 
> If it is a draft then these ULA addresses do not exist. If they do not
> exist, how can an RIR set up a registry for them?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that the RIRs should overthrow the IETF?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.