Brian, > It appears from the discussion that the "network administrator" is trying to > get *multiple* Linksys/equivalent systems to work together with no > intervention (and potentially with multiple, independent ISPs). None of the > people who I know who have such a setup with IPv4 expect this to work "out of > the box" and that is what I see people trying to do here with ULAs.
not quite as complicated as that even. two CPEs routers side by side (presumably connected to different ISPs). if there is a requirement that a CPE router should automatically generate a ULA, should the 2 routers then coordinate the ULA assignment between them. as you say, I'm not aware of any networks like that which you can auto-configure for IPv4 either. and the benefit of a single ULA prefix versus two when you in any case don't have zeroconf routing. I'm trying to get an idea what IETF consensus is for these two BBF requirements. I take your opinion to be: this is not a problem we should solve (it really requires a lot of other things too). cheers, Ole > Fred Baker wrote: >> well, of course. The question isn't what the RFC was written for, it's what >> it might be used for. In this case, the "network administrator" is the >> person who in today's internet installs a Linksys/equivalent system in the >> residence/SOHO and expects to to work before they have attached to the ISP. >> It works with IPv4... >> On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>> Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: >>>> In general, reading through the ULA rfc, while there is a fair bot of >>>> talk regarding pseudo-random ULA global-id's and use along with SLAAC, >>>> there hardly is any reference to the scenario where there can be >>>> multiple global-id's per site sourced by multiple routers. However, the >>>> presence of a subnet-id indicates that the authors did have in mind a >>>> more managed addressing assignment regime, which becomes undone in the >>>> multiple router/gateway case. >>> >>> The ULA RFC was not written with the perspective that individual routers >>> would automatically generate the ULA prefix and then advertise them (either >>> in RAs or a routing protocol). Rather, a network administrator would >>> generate the ULA prefix using the guidelines provided, design a subnet >>> model for the network, and then configure the ULA prefix + subnet >>> information in the routers. >>> >>> If a network admin wanted multiple, diverse ULA prefixes, he/she can use >>> the random generation logic to generate an arbitrary number of them. Again, >>> the RFC was not written with the intent of routers automatically generating >>> the ULA prefix without operator intervention. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Brian >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
