Re: [v6ops] ULA & Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

On 2010-12-11 08:09, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 12/10/10 10:21 AM, Mark Baugher wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:05 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
>>
>>> The advantage that unmanaged networks (for which enterprise mergers
>>> isn't a concern) can have by default this well known reserved
>>> prefix.
>> This is not true for some uses, such as those that combine the home
>> networks of two households into a single, private network.
> 
> Merging two households is a fractal representation of merging to
> enterprises.
> 
> generically but in the (first person) consider the following use cases:
> 
> o we have multiple cpe with different numbering plans (And a branch office)
> o I'd like to be able to use my girlfriend's printer.
> o likewise she'd like to control the myth-tv remotely.
> o the google-tv needs to be able to reach the nas box.
> o we have vpn's pointing in different directions into different enterprises.
> o somehow through all of this the ip-phone needs to stay working
> otherwise no 911.
> o we'd like the music streamer in my condo to continue working using the
> nas box that moved to her house.

How is this different from the bog standard IPv6 situation of running
several global prefixes on the same network? I don't see that ULAs
are special.

draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66 applies, surely?

    Brian