Catching up on email..
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
I see only downsides (unnecessary costs and useless policy discussions)
in treating this as anything but a purely technical matter. Let's leave
the policy discussions for matters where fairness and route scaling
are at stake. ULAs are plentiful (so there is no fairness issue) and
not WAN-routeable (so there is no route scaling issue).
If we don't do this, ULA-C has no noticeable advantage over PI
and we should just forget it IMHO.
Brian, it would be useful if you could elaborate a bit on "not
WAN-routeable". Some people seem to consider that as one of the major
reasons how ULA differs from PI, and I guess that leads to conclude
that ULAs have no significant impact on DFZ whereas PI might.
Specifically, I do not see any (feasible) way how router vendors could
by default drop ULA packets at some (undefined) border. This is for
two reasons; 1) it is not algorithmically possible to define which
interfaces form "ULA border" where such a filter should be applied
automatically, and 2) most vendors seem to have a policy that changes
to default behaviour (could affect existing deployments) are
unacceptable or at least very strongly frowned upon.
Why do you believe ULA addresses are intrinsically not WAN routable?
Is there something I'm missing?
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
