Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (4) Is there WG consensus on requiring a ULA?
>> I believe that this is. a) it's in rfc7084 (so they are there even
>> before homenet existed) b) it's in rfc7368 (it's in our architecture)
> RFC 7084 Section 4.3 says:
> The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be capable of generating a ULA prefix
> [RFC4193].
> RFC 7368 Section 2.4 says:
> A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs
> RFC 7788 Section 6.5 says:
> An HNCP router SHOULD create a ULA prefix if there is no other IPv6
> prefix with a preferred time greater than 0 in the network. It MAY
> also do so if there are other delegated IPv6 prefixes
> I do not believe that there is WG consensus that ULA generation should
> be a MUST.
I don't think that Ted's document demands that there be a ULA.
Rather, I think that it demands that there is a prefix that can be used for
internal services. That's a ULA on 99.9% of networks, the 0.1% being the 19
people on this list with their own RIR allocation.
If you have a situation where you have some other stable prefix that you can
use for your homenet, and you configure your routers to announce that rather
than a ULA, then you are in the edge case between a MUST and SHOULD.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
