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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps we could start by having you explain why it's a bad practice, Kyle,
since this does not appear to be universally accepted as true? :)

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 7:53 AM Kyle Rose <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>