Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 13/2/21 00:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> OK, I have deleted all the content (but basically I agree with Ted
> Lemon). IMHO:
> 
> ULAs SHOULD be treated exactly like GUAs for all practical purposes
> (including using a default router for them), with the exception that
> they MUST be filtered by border routers at a domain boundary that is
> defined administratively. The only extra requirement is that ULA
> prefixes MUST be unique within that domain boundary. That's all, I
> think.

FWIW, in the context of draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum, it has been argued 
that: "only phase out GUAs if you hear of new GUAs, and only phase out 
ULAs if you hear of new ULAs" -- i.e., that they should be treated 
differently.

(Note: I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of this.)




> As for the word "scope" and the phrase "global scope" it may be best
> to not use them at all. We originally had a false notion of
> concentric rings of address scope, but reality is a very complex Venn
> diagram. Even link-local may stop being very meaningful as we see
> more and more mesh networks. That will be much harder to handle than
> any aspect of ULAs.

Deprecate/rev RFC4007? :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492