Fred,
On 2008-03-19 01:33, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:10 AM, Gabi Nakibly wrote:
...
> Similarly, there is no sense using a ULA source address unless the
> destination is in the same ULA. If the destination is a global
> address it might or might not be able to reply, but the sender can't
> tell.
No, that isn't the case in at least two instances I can think of
1. An enterprise network whih for historical reasons is running
more than one ULA prefix - I would expect them to be fully
routed (and longest match would work).
2. An enterprise which is running a VPN with a business partner,
and is routing the ULA across that VPN.
So...
>
> Hence, in sender address choice:
> - use a link-local source address if and only if the destination
> is a link-local address
Clearly.
> - use a ULA source address if and only if the destination is a ULA
> in the same prefix
I think that is broken. There's a reason ULAs are defined as global
addresses.
Brian
> - otherwise, use a global address
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
