> Like most things people don't like about IPv6, you don't like this because you misunderstand how it's supposed to work. Thanks for explaining my own motivati

> Like most things people don't like about IPv6, you don't like this because you misunderstand how it's supposed to work. Thanks for explaining my own motivations to me, while at the same time denying that any discussed changes are relevant to anyone. > There is no need for a ULA registry I was merely summarizing what the public opinion on the matter happens to currently be. Which suggests that the current recommendation to pick a random address and be happy with it is inadequate. The original posts dissatisfaction with being able to deploy IPv6 _conveniently_ also hints that improvements would be welcome by most people. > ULAs are routable and "global" addresses in exactly the same way that RFC1918 addresses are routable and global. RFC1918 explicitly defines it's addresses as local and not globally unique. RFC4193 specifies that these addresses are meant to be globally unique. RFC1918 requires a more specific level of filtering than RFC4193, and the definition of "site local" has always had some ambiguity to it. So, within the very specific and nuanced points I was trying to make, no, they're different.