Ray Plzak wrote:
... This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the discussion is not on their mail list. The IETF works best when people directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process. I encourage you to move this discussion to the working group mail list and if you are at the IETF to attend the IPv6 Working Group at 9 AM, Thursday morning in the Georgetown room. The session is also multicast.
I second Ray's comments about participation here. At the same time as you read and form your opinions, make sure you take off your blinders about how things were done in the good old days. Many current network deployments are work-arounds to the limitations of existing technology. There are opportunities for different configurations going forward that achieve the real goals. To that end, you should also read and comment on: draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt Another point to consider is that most of the people that would be using the ULA space are NOT service providers. As such you should keep in mind that the target user's problem is not the same as most of the membership of this list, so the tools and their use are not the same. While everyone could request space from a provider or Arin for private use, having a clean single well-known bogon filter of FC00/7 makes everyone's life much simpler. Since most of the problems in the operational world are derived from unnecessary complexity, having a simple well understood filter should lead us to a more stable network. Yes we know people leak 1918 today and ULAs don't prevent leaks, but leaks of space that was not intended to be globally routed will be even more common if they are non-contiguous random pieces from each customer. Tony