> Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > Jeroen,
> >=20
> > Touching on just one aspect of your thoughtul post:
> >=20
> >>> DNS is an integral part of addressing and if
> >>> we're going to move forward with ULA-C as delegated=20
> >> 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.
> >=20
> > 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?
Because sites will have *both* ULA-C and ordinary addresses.
These sites may have private interconnects either due to
bussiness needs or mergers or ...
Because globally connected sites will see these addresses
in logs, received headers etc. Queries for these addresses will
be made from sites without reachabilty to these addresses.
Then there is what do we do with all the reverse queries coming
from sites that have failed to intercept the reverse queries.
> 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.
Not necessarially. Full disconnected sites will just maintain
their own C.F.IP6.ARPA registry.
> 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.
Why are you assuming a IPv4 solution to a IPv6 problem. If you
have global reachability you will have global addresses.
The anwer to how to talk to the Internet is to use a address with
global scope.
> 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.
>
> Greets,
> Jeroen
>
>
>
> --------------enigA4239CC2518F4B232378ACE5
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
> Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
>
> iHUEARECADUFAkZ/3q4uFIAAAAAAFQAQcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JnamVy
> b2VuQHVuZml4Lm9yZwAKCRApqihSMz58I+i9AJwLWj1LkB4GArEMWLj9WI+6jf8V
> rgCgpOKskF+TzmhR+6NMycHte3Cq6os=
> =V6C5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --------------enigA4239CC2518F4B232378ACE5--
>
>
> --===============0375020143==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --===============0375020143==--
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
