Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.
I think removing "area" and just leaving "domain" makes more sense; I can't see anyone actually deploying different ULA prefixes per area. The only possible justification would be different ULAs per business unit (to prepare for sell-offs) but business unit lines are rarely reflected in topology, in my experience. Also, why does this suggestion only apply to link-state IGPs? What are our recommendations for people using RIPv6, EIGRPv6, etc? Or with internal BGP peering between multiple IGPs? S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
