Re: Proposed update to ULA Draft (-09)

[Bob Hinden]

Mark,
Combining your two emails.
At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an
IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
connection though)
   For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizing ULA
   prefixes be contained either within one IGP domain or area.  By
   containing a ULA prefix to a single link-state area or domain, the
   distribution of prefixes can be controlled.
I think it potentially could cause conflicts with the idea of using the
same subnet numbers as those used with a global prefix.
The language "it is suggested" was chosen to allow flexibility.  As you 
point out in large multi domain/area deployments there are reasons to do it 
differently.

At 05:09 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:10:34 +1030
Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what my opinion is regarding which addressing model would
> be best, and maybe there isn't one "best" one. I suppose both of them
> could be suggested, with the caveats of each of them described.
> Possibly, it may be outside of the scope of this RFC. More discussion
> might help.
>
Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this
issue to be addressed somewhere else.
In my personal view, this would be the best course for now.  Later on it 
would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational 
networks.  For example, this might be a good activity for v6ops.  Actually, 
I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of interest in tracking 
deployment and operational experience.

Thanks,
Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------