Hi Ole, On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:02:25 +0100 Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > Would it be much harder to solve than something like the following? 1. Router boots 2. Sends out a Router Solicitation, waits a short period for responses 3. If it gets no responses, or gets a response with no ULA prefix(es), starts announcing it's own ULA in it's own RAs (either initially generates one, or uses a prior generated one from storage) 4. If it gets a response containing a ULA, starts announcing that, copying the originator's PIO parameters. Not that we should solve it now, but I think there is value in trying to solve it. Within reason, I think methods to make ULAs as simple (i.e. avoid multiples), stable and available as possible should be investigated. Regards, Mark. > > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
