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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Randy Bush writes:
> > How about writing it this way:
> > - Dont specifically divide the cases into temporarily and forever
> >   in the draft. 
> > - But there are some considerations if the network is connected
> >   someday:
> 
> no.
> 
> in front, state very clearly that you may think you have an isolated
> network now but the wisdom of the internet is that it is unlikely to
> stay isolated forever no matter what you think today.
> 
> > - Just say, now you have an isolated network, ULAs are reasonable
> >   choice, because it is free and can be used right away. 
> 
> and because you can not assume it will remain isolated, if you are silly
> enough to use a ULA today, you had best plan to change that.

Using ULA does not preclude using a GUA as well.  ULA doesn't
preclude using a second ULA prefix.

You seem to assume that you will need renumber/remove the existing
ULA addresses.  For all practical senarios you will never need to
do this.  Even if two or more sites using the same ULA prefix connect
you just add additional ULA prefixes to communicate.  The old ULA
addresses are not used for inter site communication.

Mark

> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]