On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the potential for abouse. If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm twisting and bulling will stop it.
Right... It's a toxic chemical. No matter how much we may end up wishing we could, we probably can't uninvent it at this point. Regardless, I won't encourage and will actively discourage its use.
There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA.
I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. Owen