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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 27 May 2014 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 01C0B1A0538 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3YOhvkHzQt_x for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD361A0463 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C4560; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:23:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mfsNzgzozXSW; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A922F56; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:57 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <m1WpIj0-0000BNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:56 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <353EC670-85C3-495F-923D-55FEB561E98C@steffann.nl>
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>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Zb_MQcgalyJPBlys5hhP7aeu1Kg
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
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 15:24:03 -0000

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.

Cheers,
Sander