[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thomas Narten
narten at us.ibm.com
Fri Jun 15 16:19:15 CEST 2007
Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> writes: > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they cou= > ld > > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal > > infrastructure's. > I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator > who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their > argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does > not work that way. Maybe the assertion came from those who supported ARIN Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure (http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), where using a /48 out of their aggregate did not solve the technical problem at hand. At that time, the question was raised whether ULA-P solved the problem adequately. The answer I heard was a very clear "no". And ULA-C (if had existed then) would have. Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]