RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

> The question here still remains though: how really different 
> is this from "PI". In effect it is non-DFZ-PI space that is 
> being defined here.

PI (Provider Independent) is not a relevant term to refer to addresses
that are allocated to end-user organizations for use in their own
networks. There is no provider in such a scenario, therefore the
addresses are neither provider-independent nor provider-dependent. In
fact, they are local to the end-user network which is why people have
been referring to them as Unique Local Addresses (ULA). It appears that
we are accumulating enough changes from the original ULA that it is not
correct to refer to them as ULA addresses that are centrally registered.
However, they are Unique, and they are Local. Perhaps ULRA (Unique Local
Registered Addresses) is sufficiently different from ULA that people
will not accidentally look to RFC 4193 for advice?

--Michael Dillon

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------