Arifumi,
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arifumi Matsumoto Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:30 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: [email protected]; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Dave Thaler Subject: Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt] >ULA-to-ULA will not be preferred, because ULAs are assigned lower >precedence value in the policy table than those of IPv4 and IPv6 >global addresses. I certainly understand if a host has an IPv4 and a ULA assigned, the policy table prefers the IPv4 over the ULA otherwise Internet connectivity for the host breaks down. Likewise if the host has an IPv6 global and a ULA (which is also globally scoped), the IPv6 global is preferred or Internet connectivity breaks down. However, the issue that Brian raised needs some thought. The host has an IPv4, IPv6 global, and a ULA address. What if the packet destination is a ULA for local communication, so why not use a longest-prefix match and use a ULA source? How does a longest-prefix match relate to the policy table? Do we have a mode where the policy table is the only entity used for source address selection (SAS)? If yes, then how does the ULA to ULA communication above work? Best back, Hemant
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
