On 2009-04-08 08:01, james woodyatt wrote: > As I wrote to you privately, I'm not sure I see why they feel the need to use > ULAs at all.
Let me hazard a guess. They have great confidence that ULA prefixes will never be accidentally advertised by ISPs, even if they are accidentally leaked by careless site IT departments. Therefore, they are intrinsically safer to use in intranet and extranet routing tables than any other form of global scope prefix. This argument applies even if you don't entirely trust the IT departments of your extranet partners. Note, the global scope property is important. It's the only reasonable scope for an extranet. I don't think you'll find this way of thinking easy to change, any more than you will persuade physical site security people to leave some of the doors unlocked on the weekend. Brian _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
