Jari Arkko wrote: > Lixia, > > > I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my > > understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived > > difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, > > does not exist. > > > > Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by > > whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is > > labeled. > > Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling > may not correspond to what is actually done with > it. If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if you don't want them. The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf