Templin, Fred L wrote: > Jeroen, > > Touching on just one aspect of your thoughtul post: > >>> DNS is an integral part of addressing and if >>> we're going to move forward with ULA-C as delegated >> addressing then let >>> us move forward with addressing in its entirety. >> So you want a disconnected address space which gets connected to the >> Internet? Sorry, but that more or less really implies NAT. > > I wouldn't call it a "disconnected address space which gets > connected to the Internet" but rather a "unique local address > space which gets connected to other unique local address > spaces" and IMHO I don't see any implication for NAT there.
If you are only connecting to another ULA network, then why would one ever need NS entries in ip6.arpa for this space? The whole story is about having NS entries in the ip6.arpa tree for the delegation. When you have a delegation in the Internet ip6.arpa tree, you also need to query them one way or the other and thus you are connecting your ULA-based network to that Internet. Also, people will the notice that they can use reverses from the Internet, at one point or another will also want to use SIP or various other protocols and thus end up using the Internet, and there are two ways to do that: NAT it or simply announce the ULA prefix, renumbering to a PI block is of course not an option here. As such, what is the 'local' part again, how local is it really? And how is ULA-C then different from PI? Why bother people with this ULA-C thing when they really need PI in the first place? Which they can already get for $100/year from ARIN and which will be guaranteed unique, just like all other address space from the RIR's. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
