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

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:29 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> 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

Thanks for your comment, George!
After thinking about it for a while and checking RFC4193 I stand
corrected: it should be 'SHOULD' in both cases.

>
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry