IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE011A03DD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CDeJkLzjlR5k for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331FE1A0137 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1WpJIM-0000CSC; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:28:06 +0200
Message-Id: <m1WpJIM-0000CSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9DB71B37-999E-4F7F-A7DA-6B243574E818@nominum.com> <m1WpISc-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <EFD7A8B5-7A9D-4135-8DE1-7835D9CE4903@nominum.com> <m1WpIj0-0000BNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <353EC670-85C3-495F-923D-55FEB561E98C@steffann.nl>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:56 +0200 ." <353EC670-85C3-495F-923D-55FEB561E98C@steffann.nl>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:28:05 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3V1pgz5tg7JiZDH5TGHaTQJbabg
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:28:18 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:56 +0200 you wrote:
>Hi Philip,
>
>> Hmm. What RFC changed that? I looked at RFC-6724, but that still =
>considers ULAs as
>> a special case of global scope. (Section 3.1 "Also, note that ULAs are =
>considered as
>> global, not site-local, [...]")
>
>They are still considered to be in the global scope. Section 3.1 of that 
>RFC is indeed very clear on that. They have a specific precedence and 
>label, but are considered to be in the global scope.

I guess longest prefix matching would in practice already take care of the
precedence/label difference. But I noticed that longest prefix matching is only
adviced.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email