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

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

bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
be globally routed, it seems entirely rational to apply the same
rule to your zone files. But as I said before, I can live with


please define "globally routable" in technical terms.

Why? I didn't use that phrase. The draft doesn't say that, it says that ULA prefixes must not be globally routed. Different.

i guess that i am confused here. what does it mean to be "globally routed"?

Advertised in BGP4+ between all or most ISPs.

and how is that different than "globally routable"?

I didn't attempt to define that since it is indeed a woolly phrase. Any prefix *could* be globally routed; the interesting question is whether it *is* globally routed.

      and since routing is not the same as lookup, your assertion
      about the "rational" nature of registration in a lookup system
      does not hold much credence.

Not at all. As others have pointed out, if DNS returns AAA records for prefixes that are not in fact routed, TCP timeouts will result. That's sufficient reason to not put such records in your zone files.

so your DNS server in Zurich is expected to have knowledge about the state of the routing system between ISPs in Argentina?
This problem is functionally identical to the original route server
concept that was used in the NSF NAPs. ISP A could talk to the RS and ISP B could talk to the RS, but they could not talk to each
other ... From the RS point of view, it had no knowledge of the
policy filters that prevented these two ISPs from exchanging traffic.

DNS is a lookup system. It has zero idea about the currnet state
of reachability/routedness ... telling me i should not place records
in my DNS that are useful to me, just because they are not useful to you is presumptious at best.

	when/if the DNS carries explicit routing information, then i'll be
	willing to buy into your argument... not until then though.

Perhaps you don't like the reality that most enterprises operate 2-faced DNS, but they do.


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