Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread marcelo bagnulo braun
El 09/05/2006, a las 17:27, Pekka Savola escribió: 2) v6 ULA address selection problems Deploying ULAs doesn't help here, it just makes the problem worse as you couldn't even use the 'matching scope' tweak. Do we need to specify that v6 ULAs should be treated as site scope for the

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread Eliot Lear
David others, If I understand the problem correctly, no matter whether you prefer IPv4 or IPv6 the presumption that is failing us is that if the interface has an A or record associated with it then it is reachable on that address. And yet DNS has no real understanding of reachability

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread Fred Baker
So I have a dumb question. Why not: - use a DNS lookup that asks for all records (including A, MX, and ) - open both a v4 and a v6 connection simultaneously - accept the first to successfully open and shut down all others Down sides: It gets all of the DNS data, which

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread Fred Baker
On May 10, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Durand, Alain wrote: Trying them all at the same time for potentially hundreds of clients, many of them on different subnets than any of the 17 interfaces, is overkill. Of course it is. But the discussion here is of the fact that we are trying very hard to

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread Rémi Denis-Courmont
Le Mercredi 10 Mai 2006 10:35, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : ulas and private address can be used to reach a global destiantion address heavily depending on the local setup, hence local configuration per case is needed in the general case... This assumes that one may use an ULA (IPv6) to

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:03 -0700, Fred Baker wrote: On May 10, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Durand, Alain wrote: Trying them all at the same time for potentially hundreds of clients, many of them on different subnets than any of the 17 interfaces, is overkill. Of course it is. But the

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 13:52 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: If I understand the problem correctly, no matter whether you prefer IPv4 or IPv6 the presumption that is failing us is that if the interface has an A or record associated with it then it is reachable on that address. Er, no. Unless I

Re: RFC3484 problem: scoping with site-locals/ULAs

2006-05-10 Thread Perry Lorier
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: Le Mercredi 10 Mai 2006 10:35, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : ulas and private address can be used to reach a global destiantion address heavily depending on the local setup, hence local configuration per case is needed in the general case... This assumes that