The IETF has never rejected this. It was just postponed. In addition to that, once more, there is nothing in the PDP that precludes for following something that is not IETF RFC, and this has been clear in many emails before this one. Actually whoever is stating something like this at this point, in my opinion is trying to manipulate the PDP. Regards, Jordi
De: <michael.dillon@bt.com> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:47:01 +0100 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Conversación: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central) Asunto: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central
Dear Colleagues
The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 9 July 2007.
It disturbs me to see that RIPE is seriously engaged in discussing the implementation of an addressing proposal that the IETF has already rejected. Anyone who supports this proposal AT THIS TIME, is also attacking the current structure of the Regional Internet Registry system and its relationship to IANA, the IETF and ICANN.
This is not the time or the place to be discussing central ULA addresses. If the IETF has rejected the idea in the past, then it is up to people to fix their design and take it back to the IETF forums. Regional Internet Registries should not create policy for numbering resources which have not been created by the IETF or delegated to the RIRs by IANA.
--Michael Dillon
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.