On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:46:44 -0400 Vlad Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 16:09 +0200, Stig Venaas wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:03:36AM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > > Tim > > > > > > Wouldn't an update to a policy table be enough to resolve the problem? > > > > Yes, but isn't it best that the default policy does the right thing? > > > > I agree. Is this something that may be mentioned in ULA spec? > > > Else everyone with ULA doing global multicast will need to update their > > policies. Of course vendors could use their own default policy that is > > different from 3484's policy... > > Yes. I've always considered policy from 3484 an example that will be > modified by the end-user. That's why it's there. It gives a really > basic default. If you want to be multiaddresses with ULA and global > prefixes, you need to tweak things. > I'd think ULAs and globals deployed in parallel would be the most common case, so I'd think it should just work "out of the box" without having to tweak anything. Without putting a bit of effort into it i.e. off the top of my head, I can't think of scenarios where ULAs wouldn't be deployed in parallel with globals. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
