Re: [v6ops] Documentation Prefixes for ULA

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 29, 2013, at 17:45 , David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/29/13 17:35 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This is now an ID available at:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-delong-ula-example-00.txt
>> 
>> Unless there is objection, the next version will incorporate the changes suggested by Iljitsch.
> 
> fd00:2001:db8::/48 should remain a valid ULA prefix as defined in RFC 4193, but you might want to suggest it may be reasonable to establish local policy not to use it, even though it remains valid ULA prefix.
> 
>> Are there any other changes people would like to see?
> 
> As for fc00:2001:db8::/48, I would add something like the follow to what you said;
> 
>   If fc00::/8 were defined similar to contemplated in
>   [draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central] or [draft-hain-ipv6-ulac],
>   fc00:2001:db8::/48 should be reserved in such a registry, if such a
>   registry were ever created for fc00::/8.
> 

Actually, I would rather leave it as is. If the travesty of ULA-C ever comes to be, then
I would not want to limit the authors options with this older document. Instead, I would
expect them to consider this reservation and make a decision whether a documentation
prefix within that space is desirable. If so, then it has already been set aside for their
convenience. If not, then this becomes yet another piece of road kill on the information
super highway.

> Where draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central and draft-hain-ipv6-ulac would be Informative References.

I'd rather not make informative references to expired drafts if I can avoid it.

> Since it has come up, is there any interest in moving forward some from of ULA-C?

Not from me there isn't.

> Owen, has your views on the utility of registered ULA softened?

Not in the least. Personally, I'd rather eliminate ULA altogether, but given the current bad
situation, not having a documentation prefix is likely to make it worse. As such, this seeks
to use the art of the possible to minimize the damage.

Owen