>>>>> "Ray" == Ray Hunter <[email protected]> writes: Ray> Generating a ULA independently per router is potentially going Ray> to bring problems with the new RFC3484-revise as they'll almost Ray> certainly have different Global ID's (and thus a different /48 Ray> prefix), so ULA will not be preferred for communication between Ray> nodes connected to different routers.
Ray> Sometimes it's useful to take a complete opposite view to the
Ray> way you've been thinking, and work though the consequences.
Perhaps rfc3484bis needs to say that any ULA is good to speak to any
other ULA, regardless of longest prefix match.
This puts a constraint on homenet topology that all ULAs have to be
reachable from all other ULAs. Perhaps that is in the end, acceptable.
Ray> What about going to the extreme and giving up on
Ray> central/coordinated control of a single ULA /48 Global ID
Ray> throughout the Homenet?
Ray> What about tolerating static prefix assignments (for sensor
Ray> networks)? We allow static individual IPv6 address assignments
Ray> to end nodes as well as SLAAC, so why not tolerate statically
Ray> assigned /64 prefixes? Even in Appletalk, the much vaunted
Ray> champion of autoconfiguration, a network manager had to
Ray> manually assign the network number range to at least one seed
Ray> router in an extended network.
Ray> - multiple ULA /48 Global ID's within a single Homenet is not
Ray> considered an "error"
Yes.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
pgpA5m5pysU6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
