IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 27 May 2014 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 92F211A03AA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 23:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WiPxPrYk9Din for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B7AB1A0392 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7F6689C; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1401173377; bh=/NnrxRyJ9QI5wKL5UMlRd+gOIBAN8x6kJu6TcbM55hs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yZOMu3EWaJL/ZDxYsc3+iZOo76Sn4+ZWF1CjAnl4LjcwC5p4tDF3mDCNEWoEsBIsR lLNplalyQBCH7MbVALkcD38N+UFFHRLhr3YSFh36696L7no26GBuNfHPbe6NxygIa5 xf87I+hYOBn1mIIj5ETWCmIFpxxHnN4E7C+gO+eM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E0C9A; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:49:37 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140527060418.0157A16B6C6E@rock.dv.isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405270846491.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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> <20140527060418.0157A16B6C6E@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dNSBPr0LX99ytX-Hv6p6AfecpNM
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 06:49:45 -0000

On Tue, 27 May 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 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.

That means that all resources that needs to be accessed from one 
organizaton to the next uses this new common ULA in order for source 
address selection to work properly. Only way to solve this that I can see 
it to use split horizon DNS, which is yet another mess operationally, in 
addition that all the new services addresses will need to be configured in 
firewalls etc.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email