[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 ]