On 20 nov 2007, at 18:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I object to the assumption that ULAs would be subject to RIR
involvement.
I presume you mean ULA-C/G, not ULA.
For the purpose of the above objection, I'm not making that
distinction, but for the random bits derived ULAs there doesn't seem
Not sure what you mean by solving this problem. Some people
want ULA- C. Presumably, they'll be willing to pay reasonable
registration costs. Find a few parties willing to run
registries and be done with it.
The IETF doesn't need to find anyone to run registries. The registry
task is
This sounds like provider independent which is a very
different ballgame.
The point of ULAs is not that they are independent of any
particular provider, they're independent of any and all
connectivity to the internet at large.
I agree that a ULA-C RFC must state that these addresses
In practice, what are you going to do when you do a DNS
lookup for some random domain name and you get a ULA address?
Ignore it because you know it's unreachable? Try to send a
packet anyway?
You have to send a packet because that is the only way to
discover if it is reachable or not.
On 20 nov 2007, at 12:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now you might want to configure your DNS proxy (resursive server)
to not pass through records with ULA addresses unless they
are from known sources with whom you have a prior arrangement.
But that is a different issue.
Now you might want to configure your DNS proxy (resursive
server) to
not pass through records with ULA addresses unless
they are from
known sources with whom you have a prior arrangement.
But that is a different issue.
Now the DNS must know about routing?
Why would the DNS
On 20 nov 2007, at 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now the DNS must know about routing?
Why would the DNS need to know anything about routing?
ULA addressing is intended for local use.
Right, so the DNS needs to know what's local and what isn't. (Since my
own server's
Message-
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:36 PM
To: Per Heldal
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-00
Hi Per,
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs
role
Version Notification for
draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-00
Hi Per,
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why
such an
address-block must be tagged 'special'.
Thanks for raising this point. Others
.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:15:20 +0100
Para: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ipv6@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-00
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500
Hi Per,
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why
such an
address-block must be tagged 'special'.
Thanks for raising this point. Others have made a similar argument
in the past, and it should
11 matches
Mail list logo
