Does anyone have an answer to this? Site local were deprecated because
the consensus was that there's no need for "private" addresses in
IPv6.
Are these ULA-Cs simply taking their place?
No, that's not correct. It had more do with their non-unique
properties and the notion of a unicast site scope. This is
documented in
RFC3879 "Deprecating Site Local Addresses"
Should routers not forward ULAs under any circumstance?
Also not correct. Specific ULAs (/48) are fine to forward inside of
a site, but the ULA prefix (/7) should be filtered by default at the
site border. See Section 4. Operational Guidelines in:
RFC4193 "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
Bob
p.s. This discussion would be a lot more rational if folks would
spend some time and reread these documents. We hope to get the new
central ULA draft out soon. One of the authors was traveling and we
are waiting to get his comments on the text before submitting.
Also, I personally find it pretty odd to see a debate on a document
before it is published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
