Hi,
On 2009/06/22, at 19:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
Section 2.3 of draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 says:
2.3. To change ULA address scope to site-local
RFC 5220 Section 2.1.4, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 describes address
selection
problems related to ULA. These problems can be solved by changing
the scope of ULA to site-local.
This change will also create a new problem, for sites that configure a
VPN to another partner site using ULAs on both sites, so that ULA-to-
ULA
traffic can use the VPN. In this case ULA=global and longest match may
well be the correct choice. If we change to ULA=site-local, then there
must be a note that sites wishing to use ULAs for VPN communications
will need to configure local 3484bis policy accordingly. (This is
really the inverse of what is stated in RFC 5220.)
I failed to see why we need to change policy when ULA=site-local.
Could you please elaborate on this ?
And, if we adopt ULA=global scope and longest match with N=32 set,
the case 2.1.4 in RFC 5220, ULA can be chosen for the source address
to connect a server in the Internet ?
--
Arifumi Matsumoto
Secure Communication Project
NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
E-mail: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
