Hi,
Now that the new central ULA draft is out, I wanted to add a few
words of explanation.
The current authors got involved because we received a request from
people in the RIR community who thought there was merit in the
central ULA idea and a discussion had started in the RIRs. A lot h
4.1 DNS Issues
and PTR records for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses may
be installed in the global DNS. This may be useful if these
addresses are being used for site to site or VPN style applications,
or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS systems for inside and
FYI, in case you missed it.
Good news...!
-- Daniel Park
--- Original Message ---
Sender : The IESG<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : 2007-06-18 23:31
Title : Document Action: 'IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS
Configuration' to Experimental RFC
The IESG has approved the following
Michael- I dont believe that was the intent and there might be a little
misinterpretation here due to how it was written. The document says:
>The designated allocation authority is required to document how they
will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document
in an RFC
In this draft it has some requirements for generating ULA-C prefixes and
then in 7.0 it requires the RIRs to publish an RFC documenting how they
will implement these requirements.
I think it would be better not to require the RIRs to also go through
the RFC process after a ULA-C RFC has been issue
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Jordi, my point is that technically, this is trivial, if
the community concludes it's a good idea. There is running
code. So no need for an administrative solution since a robot
can do it cheaper and better. But it isn't the IETF that
should decide who the operational community will trust
to run
