IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc> Wed, 11 July 2007 12:09 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8b0C-0002NF-9N; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:09:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8b0A-0002F1-V7 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:09:02 -0400
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8b06-00063c-Mn for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:09:02 -0400
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0CF7F8B; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:08:58 -0400
X-Sasl-enc: CQyUdV9vVICCzDub1Sg1HIN3MiNivMF2jGziARB/UwzR 1184155736
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [202.109.114.178]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C903939; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
In-Reply-To: <4694BD3D.20708@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
References: <200706251556.l5PFu6Qa057410@mail.reprise.com> <078201c7bdb0$503f2dc0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <94065E4E-7A57-46AC-8A13-D7591C26EA13@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707101337220.9923@chandra.student.uit.no> <FEB5791F-8495-4905-8D6C-D454F46FD976@apple.com> <22851.1184090216@sa.vix.com> <B29043A9-6165-47FB-B83A-0A5272A0C451@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707111133400.9923@chandra.student.uit.no> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0AA2CAA@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <4694BD3D.20708@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:08:41 +0200
Message-Id: <1184155721.14166.162.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:21 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> 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.
> RIR's themselves could thus also set aside a /20 or something and
> allocate /40-/48's from that block for that purpose and state "currently
> these might be routable, but in the future they will not be".
> Which is quite less of an addressing burn than this.
> 

It's much easier/faster to identify any ULA-space (FC00::/7) in one
comparison than having to match individual (possibly variable)
RIR-ranges (for filtering etc). Especially if/when such algorithms are
implemented in silicon for enhanced performance.


//per



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email