On Jan 17, 2005, at 14:57, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:it(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 dodifferently.
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.
This change was made to address a DISCUSS comment specifically talking about
link-state routing protocols and area boundaries. The text of the comment
is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? command=view_comment&id=26775.
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?
Distance-vector protocols are not generally broken up into admin areas like
OSPF & IS-IS. I used to run a modified ripv6 daemon that routed the original
site-locals without issues (wrt internal routing). So, I don't see much need in
giving a bunch of guidance there.
As to internal BGP, my question is "How many scenarios do we want to carry
around in this document?
Regards, Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
