An Analysis of Centrally Assigned Unique Local Addresses
draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-01

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2007-11-19
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-01.txt

Abstract

There has been discussion within the IETF IPv6 community for some time regarding whether or not to define Centrally Assigned Unique Local Addresses (ULA-Cs). Although many arguments both for and against the definition of ULA-Cs have been raised and repeated, our discussions have not resulted in consensus about whether or not to define this new address type. This document will summarize the arguments for and against the allocation of ULA-Cs, in an attempt to help the IETF IPv6 community reach a decision on this issue.

Authors

Margaret Wasserman (margaret@thingmagic.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)