[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

Wed Apr 21 16:11:38 UTC 2010

On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> yes... for those less willing to search: "Unique Addresses are Good"
> ...
> This does seem to be pretty much exactly my point (their point I suppose)

Yup.  Back in the day, the folks who ran the RIRs (at the time) were a bit distressed at that IAB statement as we had seen the writing on the wall and were telling customers that due to the limited nature of IPv4, if you didn't want to connect to the Internet, you should use private addressing.  It was a bit of a "War of RFCs" (1597, 1627, 1814, 1918).

My impression, which may be wrong, is that the primary driver for ULA-C is to avoid the administrative/cost overhead with entering into a relationship with the RIRs, particularly if there is no interest in connecting (directly) to the Internet.  I guess I don't really see the harm... 

Regards,
-drc
Speaking personally. Not representing anyone but myself. Really. No, REALLY.
(although this disclaimer doesn't appear to work for some folks who really should know better)