Ole, On 1/17/10 4:02 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > Brian, > >> It appears from the discussion that the "network administrator" is >> trying to get *multiple* Linksys/equivalent systems to work >> together with no intervention (and potentially with multiple, >> independent ISPs). None of the people who I know who have such a >> setup with IPv4 expect this to work "out of the box" and that is >> what I see people trying to do here with ULAs. > > not quite as complicated as that even. two CPEs routers side by side > (presumably connected to different ISPs). if there is a requirement > that a CPE router should automatically generate a ULA, should the 2 > routers then coordinate the ULA assignment between them. > > as you say, I'm not aware of any networks like that which you can > auto-configure for IPv4 either. and the benefit of a single ULA > prefix versus two when you in any case don't have zeroconf routing. > > I'm trying to get an idea what IETF consensus is for these two BBF > requirements. I take your opinion to be: this is not a problem we > should solve (it really requires a lot of other things too).
Correct. There is a lot of work to be done to solve this problem. And I don't see that work being taken up in the IETF with enough interest to solve the problem anytime in the near future. Regards, Brian > > cheers, Ole > > >> Fred Baker wrote: >>> well, of course. The question isn't what the RFC was written for, >>> it's what it might be used for. In this case, the "network >>> administrator" is the person who in today's internet installs a >>> Linksys/equivalent system in the residence/SOHO and expects to to >>> work before they have attached to the ISP. It works with IPv4... >>> On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >>>> Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: >>>>> In general, reading through the ULA rfc, while there is a >>>>> fair bot of talk regarding pseudo-random ULA global-id's and >>>>> use along with SLAAC, there hardly is any reference to the >>>>> scenario where there can be multiple global-id's per site >>>>> sourced by multiple routers. However, the presence of a >>>>> subnet-id indicates that the authors did have in mind a more >>>>> managed addressing assignment regime, which becomes undone in >>>>> the multiple router/gateway case. >>>> >>>> The ULA RFC was not written with the perspective that >>>> individual routers would automatically generate the ULA prefix >>>> and then advertise them (either in RAs or a routing protocol). >>>> Rather, a network administrator would generate the ULA prefix >>>> using the guidelines provided, design a subnet model for the >>>> network, and then configure the ULA prefix + subnet information >>>> in the routers. >>>> >>>> If a network admin wanted multiple, diverse ULA prefixes, >>>> he/she can use the random generation logic to generate an >>>> arbitrary number of them. Again, the RFC was not written with >>>> the intent of routers automatically generating the ULA prefix >>>> without operator intervention. >>>> >>>> Regards, Brian >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
