Thomas Narten wrote: [..] >> We have to be *very* careful here. If we allow PTR's to >> be installed in the global DNS then globally reachable >> nameservers *have* to exist for each prefix allocated. >> Otherwise the problems that the AS112 project is trying to >> deal with will appear here as well. > >> This is a long term operational cost associated with ULA-C. [..] > And help me understand how this equates to the AS112 issues. For sites > that (today) get PI space and don't actually advertise it to the > internet, aren't the DNS issues _exactly_ the same?
When the prefix is 'local' why would that need to be rooted into the global Internet? I get the point about having unique addresses out of the same namespace, but I don't get why reverses then have to be supplied too. Which leads to the point I wanted to ask: How is ULA-C different from PI? Yes, the prefix it comes from is different, which allows 'easy filtering'. But do you suddenly trust fc00::/7 more than global unicast? Also, unless there is a considerable (important) portion of the Internet that will not accept ULA-C prefixes, or the ULA-C prefix in question has a lot of value, this will become a routing mess as people will start announcing them and using them where possible. PA is also being chopped up by some who are announcing /48's already and even tricks like getting a /31 and announcing two completely separate /32's without the aggregate /31. The draft is more or less okay IMHO. But the big question is if it is really needed when there is PI already that can be used for this same purpose. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
