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

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.

Alex

Le 21/07/2015 16:02, Fred Baker (fred) a écrit :
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
>
>
"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
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>