Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

David,

You are correct. I think that the priority order should be (from most suitable to least suitable):

  *   Global IPv6
  *   Global IPv4
  *   ULA
  *   RFC 1918

I.e., there should be a distinction between global IPv4 and RFC 1918 addresses. Now, we can wonder whether it still makes sense to update RFC 6724 in 2022.

Of course, LLA are also in the picture but what it important, for me, is global connectivity.

Regards

-éric

From: David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 5 August 2022 at 18:08
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>, v6ops list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion


On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 4:45 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote
This may be an unexpected behavior, but I still prefer using global IPv4 addresses (not RFC 1918) rather than ULA. The I-D should cover this.

Currently, the RFC6724 default table doesn't distinguish between global IPv4 addresses and local RFC1918 IPv4 addresses. They are treated the same. They are both part of the same entry (::ffff:0:0/96         35     4). However, the default table does distinguish between global IPv6 addresses and ULA IPv6 addresses. So are you suggesting the default table needs to distinguish global IPv4 addresses and local RFC1918 IPv4 addresses?

-éric

Thanks

--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================