At 1:29 PM -0700 3/23/09, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>OK. So what you told me was, perhaps, that hairpinning is a concern.
> From my perspective, if a host B' in B's network tries to use one of
>its external addresses rather than preferring the address available
>behind the DMZ, it didn't correctly execute the algorithm in RFC 3484,
>which calls for it to prefer the address most similar to its own.
I note that RFC 3484 refers to site-local, rather than ULAs. Is there work
done/underway to revise the algorithm to explain whether ULA maps exactly
to site-local? Given that ULAs allowed for "informed consent" routing among
adult networks, it seems more like it gets treated/should be treated
exactly as other global scope addresses, with possibly impaired reachability.
But, as I said, I am not all sure I understand how to map my previous
understandings of scope onto this work.
Ted
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
