On 2012-03-16 23:30, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
...
> Rather, my question was about the design choice.
>
> Regarding the design of ULA and how to use the ULA, can we agree that
> ULA-to-ULA communication within the same /48 prefix is not always preferred
> over other communications using IPv4 or IPv6 global addresses ?
I would expect it to be preferred as a result of longest match; I would
not expect it to be a special case in the default policy for global
scope addresses, if that is the question.
>>> Second,
>>> when a user configures his policy table, the configured table is
>>> overwritten by
>>> this implementation dependent policy injection behavior ?
>>> Can the user suppress this behavior of policy injection ?
>>> This issue should arise also when a policy distributing mechanism is ready.
>> Good questions. Do you have suggested answers to those questions?
>> I might throw out a strawman of:
>>
>> Any automatic rows added by the implementation as a result of address
>> acquisition MUST NOT override a row for the same prefix configured
>> via other means. That is, rows can be added but never updated
>> automatically. An implementation SHOULD provide a means for
>> an administrator to disable automatic row additions.
>
>
> My suggested answer for this was to use macros, which can be
> added/deleted by a user, and interpreted as the actual prefix
> attached to the hosts.
That's an implementation method. I think Dave's proposed rule is
correct.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
