IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 D7AA91A006D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 SIYJ8LXAWFDj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71871A004E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1WpDiw-0000BIC; Tue, 27 May 2014 11:31:10 +0200
Message-Id: <m1WpDiw-0000BIC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
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> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405270846491.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20140527065441.3E98316B6F9D@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405270901500.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 09:05:03 +0200 (CEST) ." <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405270901500.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:31:10 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wdeA3aFn07ogAefMjat-7zOzM60
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 09:31:15 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 09:05:03 +0200 (CEST) you wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> You need split horizon if you use ULA regardless of whether you connect 
>> to another ULA site or not.  ULA + GUA requires split horizon.
>
>Well, if that's the methodology then you now have 3 prefixes so it's an 
>additional split horizon to maintain.

I always assumed that connecting two ULA prefixes just involved setting up
routing between them. So each host would just get one ULA prefix.

With split horizon you would have to do something to make sure that DNS requests
get routed properly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email