See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05
-Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:13 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Arifumi Matsumoto; Bob Hinden; [email protected]; Brian Haberman; Dave > Thaler > Subject: Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt] > > > In message <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter writes: > > 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 > > >>> overwrit > > ten 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 read > > y. > > >> 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 > > What I see missing is a way for a node to know what the site boundaries > are with respect to address selection. Adding a site prefix length > to RA Prefix Information would provide a 99.99% solution to this. If the Site > Prefix field is non-zero it is valid. > > e.g. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Reserved1 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Valid Lifetime | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Preferred Lifetime | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Site Prefix | Reserved2 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > + + > | | > + Prefix + > | | > + + > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
