> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:27 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: bill fumerola; [email protected] > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Jeroen, > > > > Touching on just one aspect of your thoughtul post: > > > >>> DNS is an integral part of addressing and if > >>> we're going to move forward with ULA-C as delegated > >> addressing then let > >>> us move forward with addressing in its entirety. > >> So you want a disconnected address space which gets > connected to the > >> Internet? Sorry, but that more or less really implies NAT. > > > > I wouldn't call it a "disconnected address space which gets > > connected to the Internet" but rather a "unique local address > > space which gets connected to other unique local address > > spaces" and IMHO I don't see any implication for NAT there. > > If you are only connecting to another ULA network, then why would one > ever need NS entries in ip6.arpa for this space?
To aid in connecting to another ULA network. > The whole story is about having NS entries in the ip6.arpa > tree for the > delegation. When you have a delegation in the Internet ip6.arpa tree, > you also need to query them one way or the other and thus you are > connecting your ULA-based network to that Internet. Connecting to the IPv4 Internet in order to query the ip6.arpa tree should work fine; right? > Also, people will the notice that they can use reverses from the > Internet, at one point or another will also want to use SIP or various > other protocols and thus end up using the Internet, and there are two > ways to do that: NAT it or simply announce the ULA prefix, renumbering > to a PI block is of course not an option here. I don't see how that follows, and I do not want IPv6 NAT. > As such, what is the 'local' part again, how local is it > really? And how > is ULA-C then different from PI? Why bother people with this > ULA-C thing > when they really need PI in the first place? Which they can > already get > for $100/year from ARIN and which will be guaranteed unique, just like > all other address space from the RIR's. IMHO, a "site" can be as large as a major corporation's private Intranet or as small as my laptop, and I don't want to have to pay $100/yr just to connect my laptop to other sites. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
