[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

On May 11, 2007, at 1:37 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Even if not globally routed, you may want to avoid a possible clash  
> with
> another organization, for example in case of a merge.
>
> ULA-central is NOT intended to be uses as IPv6 PI.
>

Intent is not the problem. Probability of implementation outside of the
intent is the problem.

ULA Central is only beneficial if it is somehow easier to get than  
IPv6 PI.

If it is easier to get and there is no solid (router-enforced) way to  
preclude
it from being "globally routed", then, it will get abused as an  
alternative
to IPv6 PI.

Owen



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070511/da337ed3/attachment.p7s>