Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

The use case we are talking about here is a managed enterprise network. It
should be no problem for the network operator to configure some local ra
options.

Op ma 26 sep. 2022 om 19:17 schreef Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>

>
>
> On Mon, 26 Sept 2022, 21:15 Vasilenko Eduard, <vasilenko.eduard=
> 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> >    > But how remote ULA prefix would be known to the local router?  If
>> >It can't, which is fine.
>> >If there are multiple ULAs after a merger, then we do what Brian and
>> David described and send RIOs or PIOs.
>>
>> It is evident that A=0 is for something non-local.
>>
>
> A=0 means the opposite of A=1, and A=1 has a specific meaning, nothing to
> do with non-local.
>
> Define another flag if this is going to be the solution to the fault of
> putting ULA AAAAs in global DNS.
>
> (Can it be adapted to the fault of putting link-local addresses in DNS?)
>
>
> It would be especially needed if /64 would be put into the SASA policy
>> table (then the remote prefix would be /64 too).
>> It may be needed for different /48 after the company merge.
>>
>> How to know what to put in this special PIO (A=L=0)? It looks like not
>> automated at all.
>>
>
> A sign that it's not solving the problem where it exists.
>
>
>
>> Ed/
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:45 PM
>> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; 6man WG <
>> ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
>>
>>
>> Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
>>     >> Now as to how to fix this without a global precedence for ULAs, I
>> am
>>     >> wondering about a PIO with L=0 and A=0 (exactly as recommended in
>> RFC
>>     >> 8028, but for other reasons). If a host sees such a PIO for a ULA
>>     >> prefix, it could serve as a signal that the prefix is to be given a
>>     >> suitable precedence, even though it is not on-link and not used for
>>     >> SLAAC.
>>
>>     >> I really like this.  I think it is the best solution.
>>
>>     > But how remote ULA prefix would be known to the local router?  If
>>
>> It can't, which is fine.
>>
>> If there are multiple ULAs after a merger, then we do what Brian and
>> David described and send RIOs or PIOs.
>>
>>     > proper routing is in place then no problem exists in the first
>> place,
>>     > the whole FC/7 could be prioritized.
>>
>> I don't think that non-local ULAs *should* be prioritized.
>> I think that it's actually a problem as more and more sites use ULA for
>> significant internal things, and those addresses leak into other sites.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
>> IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>