Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]

[Arifumi Matsumoto <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

On 2012/03/17, at 15:22, Dave Thaler wrote:

> Brian Carpenter writes:
> [...]
>> Let me be clear. If a local service has (for some reason) both a ULA and a non-
>> ULA global address, and the host has both, I think the correct default
>> behaviour is for the ULA address pair to be used.
> 
> As I put into the doc, I don't think that's quite right.
> 
> If both the source and dest ULAs are in the same /48 then I think the correct
> default is as you say (use ULA).

What I see a possible problem is that, in the current bis-01, this is not
implemented as a required behavior.

That is, the logic to prefer ULA in the same /48 is in the Example section,
and is not explicitly preferred/required/mandated in the document.


> 
> If the source and dest ULAs are in different /48's then I think the correct
> default is instead to use the non-ULA global, since there's no guarantee of
> routability between different /48s.  So unless configured otherwise, one
> has to assume it's far more problematic than a non-ULA global.

I do not see any problem about this point.

Best regards,

> 
> You'll find the above logic in the current 3484bis draft.
> 
> -Dave
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Arifumi Matsumoto
  NGN System Architecture Project
  NTT Service Integration Laboratories
  E-mail: [e-mail]
  TEL [phone] FAX [phone]