[125676] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Apr 21 01:35:03 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100421043432.GB25523@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:29:07 -0700
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C =
is no cheaper
and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe =
that it is likely
ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term.
As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent =
appropriate protections in
RIR policy.
Owen
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:34 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
> and a very pleasant evening.
>=20
> a few questions.
>=20
> IPv6 on your radar?
> Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs?
>=20
> Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line?
>=20
> if you think something like this is a good idea, worth=20
> persuing, I'd like to hear from you.
>=20
>=20
> --bill
