On May 29, 2007, at 2:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29-mei-2007, at 11:18, Shane Kerr wrote:
There are no advantages to ULA (central), as I see it. Which is why I oppose it.
It troubles me that so many people are willing to deprive others of something that those others consider useful just because they themselves don't find that thing useful.
Quote from dr. Phil: "If your kid wakes up at night and says 'daddy I'm thirsty can I get some water' you don't say 'I'm not thirsty, you don't need water', you give the kid a glass of water. Everyone has different needs."
Right, but, if your kid wakes up at night and says "Daddy, I've got a hankering to blow stuff up. Can I get a grenade?" You don't just hand the kid a live grenade, whether you like to blow stuff up or not. Most of the opposition to ULA-C is because we see real downsides to it and don't see ANY upsides. Advantages of ULA-C (even to those who claim there are some): Virtually none. Some minor configuration convenience if a number of unsubstantiated assumptions are hard-coded into routers. Disadvantages of ULA-C: Nothing prevents it from becoming another form of provider-independent routed space on the internet. The policies for ULA-C are likely to be different from the policies for PI. If both address spaces function in an equivalent manner and have different policies to obtain/maintain the addresses, then the policy mechanism is undermined. etc. Owen _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML@arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml