Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations

Alexandru Petrescu <> Tue, 21 July 2015 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C464C1A8868 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwkYAj2Fowza for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CEE1A887E for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t6LEJ1NY031412 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 589D720239F for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5006F201FCB for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t6LEIx1T011806 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200
References: <>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:18:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:19:05 -0000

1. Brian suggested to recommend that globals should be there on the
machines having ULAs as well, if I understand correctly.

But I think so only on some Hosts, mainly the Hosts of end users.

2. the ULA RFC suggests a ULA prefix can be generated out of a MAC
address.  That sixxs implementation does it.  Except it takes it too
serious: it does not accept a MAC address which is not a real MAC
address - in that oui.txt.  And random MAC addresses (for privacy)
certainly are not in that oui.txt.

I think this is an undesirable situation to be in: unable to generate
ULAs because the only tool out there (sixxs) can't refuses a copy paste
a MAC address from the widely used windows 7 laptops.

I am not sure what the problem is, but it's very good to have a very
easy way to generate ULAs.

3. in an enterprise deployment there was a problem of ULAs deployed in a
intra-network and another ULA space in another intra-network, of the
same enterprise.  So we wanted to make sure two things: the two ULA
spaces are distinct, or otherwise make sure the gateway router does not
route between the two intranets' ULAs (but yes, route between their
respective GUAs).   I am not sure how to translate that into advice,
because I am not sure how it will unfold in the near future.


Le 21/07/2015 16:02, Fred Baker (fred) a écrit :
"Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses", Bing Liu, Sheng
> Jiang, 2015-05-03
> This draft came up from the floor this afternoon. I think we need
> some concentrated constructive conversation regarding it - we have
> had a lot of the other kind.
> What issues do we need to address to complete it. and what specific
> recommendations would that include?
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list