Robert,
RFC 6890 refers to RFC4193 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses as "Unique
Local". So, I used that terminology.
But you are probably correct. We should call them RFC 4193 ULA.
Ron
From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 2:30 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06 - locators
Folks,
I recommend to either update the below proposed text with explicit addition of
RFC4193 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses as a possible pool or forget about
this proposed change below all together.
Kind regards,
R.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:21 PM Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Folks,
This draft version looks much better.
Please consider the following change in Section 3..1:
OLD>
L, the locator length, is flexible, and an operator is free to use the locator
length of their choice.
<OLD
NEW>
LOC MUST be drawn from a globally addressable IPv6 unicast prefix or one of the
following Special Purpose IPv6 Prefixes [RFC 6890]:
- Benchmarking (i.e., testing only)
- Documentation (i.e., testing only)
- Unique-Local
L, the locator length, MUST be less than or equal to the length of the prefix
from which LOC was drawn.
<NEW
Juniper Business Use Only
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!QNM6paXeEfU3kUk8VGA9Etan2nPDqwPGk1vxbZ7NGa6s_mm5HyAXo-26j_OeltTA$>
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
