Ted Hardie a écrit : > 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?
there is a design team working on updating RFC3484. There will be an update of this work presented during 6man this week. Marc. > 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 -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
