james woodyatt wrote: > The latest message I received concluded with these paragraphs: >> >> In summary, I agree that your proposal will work, if both B2B partners >> agree to advertise their FC00:: routes to each other via the private >> link. But there is some risk to the business from the additional >> routes in the route table. Also some extra complexity from the >> additional static configuration (enabling use of the fc00:: subnet on >> the host, and possibly the fc00::/7 -> route if that can't be put in a >> router advertisement).
Just curious - assuming that ULAs should be used at all (and it's not immediately clear that they should), why wouldn't an RA containing the ULA prefix suffice to enable use of the subnet on each host? To me it seems like more problems are likely to result from use of ULAs as secondary prefixes, than from use of PA or PI global addresses. In particular, applications have to know whether to use a ULA or P* address as a source and/or destination address, and default address selection rules don't always do the right thing. So you might have to statically configure each app (because the "right thing" will vary from one app to the next) but not each host. >> I don't consider the operational impacts to achieve "no IPv6 NAT >> purity" worth it. IPv6 to IPv6 NAT is an important tool in the >> network engineer's toolbox. Reading this, it's difficult to not be reminded of Maslow's hammer that makes everything look like a nail. Still, it's important to understand this case better. Either we need to address it in an update to RFC 4864, or we need to make sure that IPv6 NAT satisfies this case. (or maybe both, on the assumption that there's too much mindshare behind NAT to expect network engineers to give it up as a condition of IPv6 transition.... but we can hope that they'll learn eventually to do without it.) Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
