Re: [addr-select-dt] Proposed default policy table

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

Now that 6rd is done, what's the view on 6to4?

I know a lot of people would be quite keen to see 6to4 deprecated.

Tim

On 8 Jul 2010, at 18:08, Tony Hain wrote:

> For updating 3484-revise section 2.2, the table I have been running at home
> for some time is:
> 
> Precedence  Label  Prefix
> ----------  -----  --------------------------------
>        90      0  ::1/128
>        75      1  fc00::/8
>        70      1  fd00::/8
>        50      2  2001::/16
>        50      2  2400::/8
>        50      2  2600::/8
>        50      2  2a00::/8
>        50      2  2c00::/8
>        40      3  2002::/16
>        30      3  2001::/32
>        20      4  ::/0
>        10      5  ::ffff:0:0/96
>         5      6  ::/96
>         4      6  fec0::/16
> 
> The explicit label 2 set is due to a bug in the vista stack, as that should
> be a single entry of 2000::/3, (and the fec0 should be /10). The differences
> from the proposed one in the October text are: 
> - Adding explicit entries for each half of the ULA space to prefer local
> when possible (rule 2).
> - Explicitly listing 2000::/3 to avoid default resulting in the ambiguous
> choice of ula as src.
> - Keeping teredo and 6to4 as tunnels labeled the same.
> - Tunnels before default to avoid the ambiguous choices default will result
> in.
> - packaging all deprecated prefixes in the same label.
> 
> The currently proposed table in 2.2 does not solve the problem in 1.1, so it
> would be good to move that example to an appendix or at least after the 2.2
> discussion, and replace it with the one of a host selecting between Internet
> access and a closed network. 
> 
> I understand the desire to move teredo to less than IPv4. While I disagree
> with the premise, a resulting policy table that does that might look like:
> 
> Precedence  Label  Prefix
> ----------  -----  --------------------------------
>        90      0  ::1/128
>        75      1  fc00::/8
>        70      1  fd00::/8
>        60      2  2000::/3
>        50      3  ::/0
>        30      4  2002::/16
>        20      5  ::ffff:0:0/96
>         5      4  2001::/32
>         1      6  ::/96
>         1      6  fec0::/16
> 
> I suggest leaving 10, 40, & 80 in the precedence so people can move IPv4 or
> ULA around without feeling the need to rewrite the other labels (they don't
> have to, but an obvious hole to park it in reduces confusion). I haven't
> tried that, and don't have time before I leave today, but I will put that in
> and see how it works before the IETF meeting. It should be close to what the
> current text was trying to get to, but with the explicit ula and gua
> prefixes to avoid default it should work more consistently.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt