[address-policy-wg] ULA discussion

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