Re: [v6ops] comment on draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Fred
> 
>> </chair>
>> 
>> I'm told that it goes beyond that. There are at least three "directions" in the
>> split:
> [Bing] Did you mean you are told from some real deployment, or told from the ULA draft?

I am on the board of a company that produces a product that is used in these configurations. One of the engineers told me it is a requirement his customers present him with. Today, that is generally IPv4, not IPv6, so I can't comment on ULAs, only extrapolate. I was commenting on the DNS configuration.

>>   - inside, where internal-only names are advertised, might use an
>> internal-only prefix, and even "outside" names might have different servers
>> and different addresses.
>>   - outside, where internal-only names are not advertised
>>   - partner, which is "outside" plus some names made accessible to the
>> partner, and may imply some form of b2b routing as well.
> [Bing] Say if ULAs are used for b2b private routing, in the "partner" case, does it means the b2b ULAs are stored in the outside DNS, so that the partners could get the ULAs through public DNS, and access to the ULAs through private routing?

In the particular configuration, as I understand what the engineer told me, "inside", "outside", and in the "partner" case, the identity of the partner, are attributes in the underlying database. The software looks at the request, determines what data should be included in the response, and includes it.