[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 ULA



Tony Hain wrote:
During a bar discussion very late last night an issue was raised about lack
of clarity, but I am sure we need to put more thought into the remedy than I
will suggest. In any case, the issue is that by leaving the filtering action
as an operational topic we invite restraint of trade complaints. Basically
nobody is in the position to tell someone else that they Must/Should filter
FC00::/7 without the lawyers circling. The current text tries to cover the
case, but leaves it unclear if the action is operational or vendor
implementation. Given how tired I am, I am sure I am not doing much better
...

Proposed remedy: change the third paragraph of 4.0
remove:
'Any router that is used between sites must be configured to filter out any
incoming or outgoing Local IPv6 unicast routes. The exception to this is if
specific /48 or longer IPv6 local unicast routes have been configured to
allow for inter-site communication.'

replace with:
'The behavior of exterior routing protocol sessions between administrative
routing regions MUST be to ignore receipt of and not advertise the FC00::/7
prefix. A network operator MAY specifically configure prefixes longer than
FC00::/7 for inter-site communication.'

I think that is an improvement.

   Brian


Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ipv6-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:22 AM
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
Cc: ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IPv6 ULA

It's no surprise that some ISP people see some disadvantages
to ULAs, but I think we knew that a long time ago. I believe
that we already balanced the potential disadvantages to ISPs
against the known advantages for user sites. I see ULAs as
partly compensating user sites for the known disadvantages
of the strict PA model adopted for IPv6.

Of course, if the ISP community has constructive suggestions
to improve the centrally-assigned ULA model, that would be great.
It's very late for draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt.

   Brian

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

	there are a large volume of discussion on nanog list on IPv6 ULA.
	you may want to check it out.


	http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/

itojun

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@xxxxxxxx Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@xxxxxxxx Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@xxxxxxxx Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------