Yes, this is a really good clarification. Thanks! On Jul 19, 2016 11:38, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 =- > > > >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
