Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

>
> Also, MUST allows us to make ULA more useful than it is today. It is
> *desirable* to be able to publish non-local ULAs and have hosts know what
> is local and what is not. As a simple example: once all hosts implement the
> MUST, it will be safe to publish local ULAs in the global DNS, because
> hosts won't try to use them unless they are local.
>

Perhaps ironically, this is the best argument I've read in opposition to
mandating the policy table be updated for known-local ULAs. Unreachable
addresses should never be published in global DNS with the intent that
clients figure it out, and the IETF should publish a standards track
document explaining why this is a bad practice.
Kyle