Hi, I think the ULA section is still not quite right.
> 2.1.1. Use of ULAs > > Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are intended for scenarios > where systems are not globally reachable, despite formally having > global scope. ULA are not similar to [RFC1918] addresses and have > different use cases. One use of ULA is described in [RFC4864] and > some considerations on using ULA is described in the draft document > [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations]; this document failed to > have the IETF consensus and is now considered as dead. 1. I think it is worth mentioning that ULAs should be filtered at domain boundaries. 2. Actually they are *similar* to RFC1918 - but they are not the same. 3. I don't think there is any use in referencing a draft that you describe as "dead". So, a possible rewrite: 2.1.1. Use of ULAs Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are intended for scenarios where interfaces are not globally reachable, despite being routed within a domain. They formally have global scope, but RFC 4193 sepcifies that they must be filtered out at domain boundaries. ULAs are different from [RFC1918] addresses and have different use cases. One use case is described in [RFC4864]. Regards Brian Carpenter _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
