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

I tend to SHOULD. you can do what you like, but the consequence of not
doing a local delegation is information leakage. There is no compelling MUST

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Liubing (Leo) <leo.liubing@huawei.com>wrote:

> Hi, Jen
>
> I got your comments. I'll consider to revise accordingly. Many thanks
>
> Regards,
> Bing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Jen
> Linkova [furry13@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 09:50
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] comment on draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis
>
> Section 4.2. says that
> "
>
> So when using ULAs in a network, the administrators should clearly
>    set the scope of the ULAs and configure ACLs on relevant border
>    routers to block them out of the scope. And if internal DNS are
>    enabled, the administrators might also need to use internal-only DNS
>    names for ULAs.
> "
> I believe it should that that the administrator MUST configure egress
> ACLs on borders routers and MUST ensure that their DNS servers do not
> include ULAs in any responses to external clients.
>
>
>
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>