Paul, My understanding is that when two sites agree to form a peering arrangement and are joined, e.g., by a VPN link, then they should be able to advertise their ULA-C's for use within the scope of their now-linked sites. So, it's not about a site freely redistributing its ULA routes into any other arbitrary site; there should be an explicit peering arrangement first.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:44 AM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > > I think a better way of describing it is "administrative > domain". ... > > in addition to bmanning's worthy comments, let me say that > this redescription > entirely removes the point of my question. the assertion i > first quoted was: > > > > > Not that it really matters, since ULAs never appear > off-site anyway. > > and my question was: > > > > depending on what you mean by a site, both in relative > and absolute terms > > > of space and of time, there might be general agreement on > this point, or > > > not. > > > > > > hopefully the regress isn't infinite. care to take it a > step and see? > > call it a site, call it an administrative domain, call it > anything you want. > but explain to me please the relationship between the > allocation domain and > the routing domain. if the network part (allocation domain) > is universal, > but the routing domain is not universal, then i need to know > what routing > domain you're expecting. i can advertise my ULA-C to my next > door neighbor > but not my across the street neighbor? i can advertise it to > whomever i want > but it will mysteriously not work beyond an unpredictable > perimeter? my city > utility fiber/wireless network hears me but only half of the > other residents > hear me? all local residents hear me but my city's > "provider" does not? my > city's provider hears me but half of their other customers filter me? > > if we're going to expect routability to provide connectivity > in some cases > but not all, which is what's implied by saying "never appear > off-site", then > we need to know what cases and exactly what noncases. so > what's a "site"? > or what's an "administrative domain"? or call it what you > want -- what is it > and how do the routing domain, connectivity domain, and the > allocation domain > relate to each other? > > if i seem anxious to cut to the chase it's because i've read > all this before > when "site local" was first proposed and then later, again, > when it was > deprecated. so let's keep our feet on the ground and define > our terms and > make sure we have common understanding before anybody runs out ahead. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
