Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 08:52:02 -0400 you wrote:
>The operational situation that's problematic is the large enterprise 
>scenario, where you have two large enterprises with their own ULAs that 
>merge.   If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least 
>one of them.   If they don't clash, you still have to deal with routing 
>them (although I think the split-horizon complexity objection Mikael 
>raised ought to be thought through carefully before being asserted as 
>factual, because I think it can be addressed through routing and not 
>naming).

If you are a large entrprise, just spend the 50 euro or so (RIPE service region) it
costs to get your own prefix.

I assume that any large enterprise is very likely to be multi-homed anyhow. Even
becoming an LIR should not even be noticable in the budget.

No real reason for a large enterprise to use ULA.