On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:09, Brian E Carpenter 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.
ULAs are specifically defined to have global scope, since they can
legitimately
be used off-site for VPN routing with other consenting sites; the
rule is
that they must not be routed on the public Internet.
They must not be routed in the default-free zone. That's not the same
as the public Internet. We can certainly expect the public Internet
to contain some routes for ULA prefixes; they just won't ever appear
in the default-free zone.
I recognize the distinction is subtle, but it's not without relevance
to the larger discussion at hand: namely, the effect of NAT66 on the
utility of address referrals, which is where the hairpinning concern
will arise.
--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
