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

[Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>]

I see a need for stable, permanent blocks of addresses within an organization. For example, a branch office connecting 
to a central office over VPN: firewall rules need to be predictable. If the branch office' IPv6 block changes, much 
access will break. This is directly analogous to how RFC1918 space is used today in such environments.

There is a need to have organizations be able to either self-assign or RIR-assign space that they own and can use 
without trouble within their network. That address space need not be routable on the public networks.

In general I think this draft has merit.

On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 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:
>
> > and a very pleasant evening.
> >
> > a few questions.
> >
> > IPv6 on your radar?
> > Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs?
> >
> > Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line?
> >
> > if you think something like this is a good idea, worth 
> > persuing, I'd like to hear from you.
> >
> >
> > --bill