Mark,
Combining your two emails.
At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4 connection though)
For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizing ULA prefixes be contained either within one IGP domain or area. By containing a ULA prefix to a single link-state area or domain, the distribution of prefixes can be controlled.
I think it potentially could cause conflicts with the idea of using the same subnet numbers as those used with a global prefix.
The language "it is suggested" was chosen to allow flexibility. As you point out in large multi domain/area deployments there are reasons to do it differently.
At 05:09 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:10:34 +1030 Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what my opinion is regarding which addressing model would > be best, and maybe there isn't one "best" one. I suppose both of them > could be suggested, with the caveats of each of them described. > Possibly, it may be outside of the scope of this RFC. More discussion > might help. >
Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this issue to be addressed somewhere else.
In my personal view, this would be the best course for now. Later on it would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational networks. For example, this might be a good activity for v6ops. Actually, I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of interest in tracking deployment and operational experience.
Thanks, Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------