I fail to see the point of mandating non-routable space with allocated ULA-C. Any network administrator has the ability and freedom to not route as much or as little of their PI space as they want. Why force constraints on usage?
If they are going to link two physically seperated sites (into a WLAN or MLAN for example) with 'private' IP's then isn't that just access-listed PI? Please explain to me what you could do with ULA-C that you can't do with PI and an ACL. I really want to understand. The only possible use I can figure is so that soho router manufacturers can have something to hard-code in to their LAN/DHCP defaults, but even then there would have to be a subnet parameter passed to the router by DHCP unless one was going to assume that the WAN network was the entire PI space. Thanks in advance for the constructive education. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:41 PM > To: Jeroen Massar > Cc: Thomas Narten; Mark Andrews; [email protected] > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt - reverse DNS > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > What is the point of that? How can a ULA address reach a global > > unicast address or for that matter, how is such a ULA > address, which > > is most likely going to be the sole user of those reverse servers > > going to contact any of the root servers, .arpa servers, > RIR servers > > etc to actually find out where that server is located in > the first place? > > > > Are those people going to do NAT from their ULA space? Then please > > directly kill this whole ULA proposal completely. If NAT is > involved > > in anyway it should never see daylight. > > I do not know the intended deployment scenarios, but in many > cases where I'd expect ULA-C migth be deployed, I'd expect > such sites to have some global addresses as well for v4, v6 > or both (maybe at a different physical site, just for a > couple of infrastructure servers instead of all hosts, etc.) > > You're right that if a ULA(-C) site would have no global > addresses whatsoever, reverse-DNS delegations can't be done. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
