Paul Vixie wrote:
without a consensus on what it means "to harm", we're sort of stuck. ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) would allow consenting adults to exchange routes using the whois and in-addr infrastructure that has historically been reserved for "public networking".
Without going into debate about consenting adults, and while I might disagree with Paul in certain fine points, I'd suggest that we consider the ULA-G proposal within the IETF and ask that Paul submit it as an I-D. ULA-G could have broad application if in fact we solve the multihoming problem (IMHO) and I'd like to be the optimist and say that we can do that.
Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf