> >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. I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re-examine that statement. Your second statement: >f 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. Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of ULAs now. Filtering it on is already possible (and I heartily encourage same!). Adding ULA-C doesn't make that easier or harder, and it does nothing else that would "enforce keeping private space private". None of the ULA-C proposals I have seen came with a police force or standing army of clue-bat wielding networking engineers. Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf