draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise
On Mar 23, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 1:29 PM -0700 3/23/09, Fred Baker wrote:
OK. So what you told me was, perhaps, that hairpinning is a concern.
From my perspective, if a host B' in B's network tries to use one of
its external addresses rather than preferring the address available
behind the DMZ, it didn't correctly execute the algorithm in RFC
3484,
which calls for it to prefer the address most similar to its own.
I note that RFC 3484 refers to site-local, rather than ULAs. Is
there work
done/underway to revise the algorithm to explain whether ULA maps
exactly
to site-local? Given that ULAs allowed for "informed consent"
routing among
adult networks, it seems more like it gets treated/should be treated
exactly as other global scope addresses, with possibly impaired
reachability.
But, as I said, I am not all sure I understand how to map my previous
understandings of scope onto this work.
Ted
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
