This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] ULA discussion
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ULA discussion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ULA discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Thu May 31 09:57:08 CEST 2007
you forgot the DNS part of that... without ULA-C there is no global DNS possibilities. That means split DNS for larger closed network/corporation network. ref RFC4193 - section 4.4... On Wed, 30 May 2007, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello all, > > The ULA discussion has been going on for some time now, and I'd like to > summarize it a bit. > > The differences between ULA address space and PI (or PA) address space: > - ULA space should be easier/cheaper to get than PI space > - PI space is meant for routing outside your organization and associated > networks > - ULA space is meant for inside your organization and associated networks > > Usefulness of ULA space: > - I see some people/organizations who would realy like it > - I see some people/organizations who don't like it > > As people who don't ULA don't have to use it (and filter fc00::/7), I would > like to see other (preferably objective/technical) reasons why ULA space is > a bad idea. Why should we deny ULA space to those who want it and think it > is useful to them? > > Usefulness of ULA-Central space: > - Some people think that the possibility of a conflict between two > ULA-Local prefixes is so small that it does not really matter > - Other people think even that very small chance does matter, and they > would like a ULA-Central registry > > If the people/organizations who want an ULA-Central registry also pay for > it, are there any other problems with providing such a registry? > > The question remains about who should operate and maintain that registry. > Because RIPE NCC has a lot of experience with maintaining an IP address > registry, they are a likely candidate for this. What arguments are there > for and against letting RIPE NCC maintain this registry? What are possible > alternatives? > > I hope I summarized everything correctly, and that I covered all remaining > questions. If I missed anything, please let me know. If you have any input > about any of the remaining questions, let's discuss it! > > Thank you, > Sander Steffann > > > -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ULA discussion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ULA discussion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]