[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

On May 29, 2007, at 2:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 29-mei-2007, at 11:18, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> There are no advantages to ULA (central), as I see it. Which is why I
>> oppose it.
>
> It troubles me that so many people are willing to deprive others of
> something that those others consider useful just because they
> themselves don't find that thing useful.
>
> Quote from dr. Phil: "If your kid wakes up at night and says 'daddy
> I'm thirsty can I get some water' you don't say 'I'm not thirsty, you
> don't need water', you give the kid a glass of water. Everyone has
> different needs."

Right, but, if your kid wakes up at night and says "Daddy, I've got a
hankering to blow stuff up.  Can I get a grenade?"  You don't just
hand the kid a live grenade, whether you like to blow stuff up or not.

Most of the opposition to ULA-C is because we see real downsides
to it and don't see ANY upsides.

Advantages of ULA-C (even to those who claim there are some):
	Virtually none.
	Some minor configuration convenience if a number of unsubstantiated
		assumptions are hard-coded into routers.

Disadvantages of ULA-C:
	Nothing prevents it from becoming another form of provider-independent
		routed space on the internet.

	The policies for ULA-C are likely to be different from the policies  
for PI.

	If both address spaces function in an equivalent manner and have  
different
		policies to obtain/maintain the addresses, then the policy mechanism
		is undermined.

	etc.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070529/612240ce/attachment-0001.p7s>