On 2012-01-09 22:37, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 01/09/2012 05:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> The ULA will have no meaning for ICMP messages that leave the >>>> administrative domain. >>> That doesn't matter, >> How do you implement BCP38 filters if the address lacks clear ownership? > > Same thing would happen as it currently happens with ICMP error messages > sourced from private addresses: some get "mysteriously" dropped. -- i.e. > using ULAs for the source address of ICMPv6 messages seems like a very > bad idea.
It's a bad idea, but using link-local is even worse, because those MUST be dropped. I don't think ULAs will be stopped by ingress filters in the case that people over on v6ops were complaining about, where ICMP echo replies were sent by ISP-internal routers. ULAs will be stopped by ingress filters if a customer site uses them for ICMP replies. We agree that using a globally routeable address is best. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
