Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:37 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 06-Apr-24 07:15, David Farmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]>> wrote:
> ...
> >     If constrained devices already support the policy table, I do not
> think this additional work is onerous.
> >
> >
> > How would the "known-local" ULA prefixes be populated if not dynamically
> updated from PIOs and RIOs?
>
> By the simple fact that a host actually has a ULA. This is the approach I
> used in three different userland hacks:
>
> https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/enable_ula.py
> https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/gai_wrap.py
> https://github.com/becarpenter/getapr/
>
>     Brian
>

That will work for a single ULA network, but how does that work when you
merge ULA networks, as discussed in section 4.2 of RFC4193? Do all hosts
have to get an address from the other network(s) to know they are local?
Somehow, the host needs to know the other ULA networks to treat it as
local; otherwise, effectively, you can't merge ULA networks as RFC4193
promises. I envision that coming from ROIs. If not ROIs, what?

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================