It should be obvious by now that my main purpose in these discussions was to motivate a use case, and I consider my "four questions" message as an unfortunate diversion from that. A fifth question that should have been asked is:
5) will it impair my use case? and a sixth is: 6) how can I be sure that it won't? Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:43 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Paul Vixie; [email protected] > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > > > My use case questions that still need to be satisfied are: > > > > 1) can any site (large or small) get a ULA-C? > > 2) can the ULA-C's be obtained at a nominal cost? > > 3) can the ULA-C's be published in the global DNS > > forward and reverse? > > 4) can the ULA-C's be kept out of the DFZ? > > > > If Paul's proposal answers all of these as "yes", then > > I have no objections. > > > > Fred > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I believe 1 and 2 where always the intention. > I believe you can't stop AAAA records for them being added. > I believe that the reverse can be done but we need to take > care. > I believe 4 can be achieved with the appropriate use of route > filter and loose URPF over FC00/7. Default null route for > FC00/7 and appropritate route filters. > > -- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
