In message <120e3724-7356-45f1-b70c-0b3081d8e...@nttv6.net>, Arifumi Matsumoto writes: > Hi, > > On 2012/01/23, at 16:09, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > In message <43f32baa-c3cb-4214-bce7-b1cd75ec5...@nttv6.net>, Arifumi Matsum > oto writes: > >> Mark, > >> thank you for your comment. > >> > >> As you mention it, it should be less harmful to give the whole ULA > >> block a lower precedence value, if we assume ULA leakages will happen > >> here and there by DNS mis-configurations, address information exchange > >> in P2P applications, and so on. > >> > >> Regarding communication between ULAs, such a network that really wants > >> to make use of multiple ULA blocks should have a way of controlling > >> address selection behavior of their hosts, such as policy table > >> configuration and DNS configuration. > >> > >> The question is whether we can accept the appearance of macro in > >> the policy table. > >> > >> Prefix Precedence Label > >> ::1/128 60 0 > >> <YOUR ULA>:/48 50 1 > > > > You also want the labels for each ULA/48 to be seperate. > > > > <YOUR ULA>:/48 50 # > > Do we need to have different labels for ULAs ? > > If ULAs are assigned to a host, the host can choose an appropriate > source ULA address because of the longest match rule.
That may be enough. > >> ::/0 40 2 > >> ::ffff:0:0/96 30 3 > >> 2002::/16 20 4 > >> 2001::/32 10 5 > >> fc00::/7 5 6 > >> ::/96 1 10 > >> fec0::/10 1 11 > >> 3ffe::/16 1 12 > >> > >> I assume the line of <YOUR ULA> will be interpreted as a line > >> or lines of ULA prefix(es) that is attached to interface(s). > >> > >> Another point is that a host has to maintain the ULA line in responses > >> to addition and deletion of the addresses. > > Another possibility is just the de-pref of the whole ULA block. > > Prefix Precedence Label > ::1/128 60 0 > ::/0 40 2 > ::ffff:0:0/96 30 3 > 2002::/16 20 4 > 2001::/32 10 5 > fc00::/7 5 6 > ::/96 1 10 > fec0::/10 1 11 > 3ffe::/16 1 12 > > In this case, the problem Mark pointed out will not happen, but > ULA will not be preferred over IPv4 and IPv6 global addresses. > Do we really prefer ULA over these addresses ? Yes. Think Homenet where you want *internal* connections to use ULA rather than PA addresses. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
