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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt



Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote:

|> Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote:
|> 
|> |+    Advertising locally assigned ULA AAAA records in the global DNS is
|> |+    MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|> |+    to unexpected connections.
|> 
|> I strongly object to making this a "MUST NOT," especially with the growing
|> uncertainty that there will ever be a _permanent_ centrally assigned flavor
|> of ULA available without recurring fees.
|
|	Publishing AMBIGIOUS addresses in the GLOBAL DNS is WRONG.

Wrong in what way?  Morally?  If you don't want to be troubled by the
presence of locally assinged ULAs in my forward DNS, just don't request
names from my forward DNS.

|	If you need to publish them in the DNS you need to use a 
|	split DNS configuration.

No, that will not work if I want to use locally assigned ULA addresses for
dynamic tunnels that anyone can access.  And in any case, do you really want
us to be in a position of mandating split DNS?  I have no objection to folks
running split DNS if they so desire, but I do not so desire and I certainly
do not wish to force split DNS on anyone.

|This is no different to how we handle
|	RFS 1918 address.

Umm, if locally assigned ULA addresses are going to have to be treated the
same as RFC1918 addresses, why couldn't we have just kept site local addresses?

|They don't get published in the GLOBAL DNS
|	because they are AMBIGIOUS.

Merely repeating this assertion (even IN ALL CAPS) really isn't a useful
argument.  We have spent many months discussing ULAs as a solution to the
ambiguity of site local addresses.  This seems like a last minute attempt
to cripple them.

|> An important feature of even locally assigned ULAs is that they are globally
|> unique "enough" for many/most purposes that have been discussed.  After month
|> s
|> of analysis to that end, their lack of absolute uniqueness is insufficient to
|> justify adding new prohibition on a particular range of uses at this late dat
|> e.
|
|	They are unique enough to link serveral hundred / thousand sites
|	*with minimal renumbering required*.
|
|	They are not unique enough to link millions of sites where the
|	is no way of knowing that renumbering is required.

Even if you are correct that they are not unique enough to link millions
of sites (and I do not accept that you are correct--duplicates could be
handled by cooperating sites by a de facto uniqueness mechanism outside
the scope of this proposal) how does this justify restricting the utility
of locally assigned ULAs in the several hundred/thousand sites case?

How about a compromise?  Let's first insure that centrally assigned ULAs
are available for permanent assignment with no recurring fees (and at most
a nominal initial fee).  Once that is accomplished we would be in a better
position to weigh the costs/benefits of recommending locally assigned ULAs
in various contexts.  Such recommendations could be in a document separate
from the core ULA document.  Restricting the use of locally assigned ULAs
before we even know whether there will be an alternative seems a bit rash.
After all, this topic has been under discussion for a very long time; what's
the rush now?

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

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