Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, "Fred Baker (fred)
" writes:
>
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > We should also demonstrate that ULA in conjuction with other GUA is not
> harmful.
>
> </chair>
>
> I think the point that has to be shown is that it *is* harmful. We didn't
> have to prove link-local, multicast, unicast, 6to4, or any other address
> non-toxic; what makes ULA special?

We have also had people argue that using ULA w/ GUA is harmful as
they are worried about connections timing out and address selection
rules from various points in time.

We know ULA + NAT is harmful.  Practical demonstrations of the
alternatives working will eliminate some of the fears people have
for using ULA + GUA (PA).

> On this list, several operators have stated that they use ULAs in
> addressing things like cable modems and mobile network infrastructure. If
> the issue with ULA is NAT, those are examples of devices that need no NAT
> - for the simple reason that they don't speak outside their domains.
> However, they are indeed local to a network and their prefix SHOULD NOT
> be advertised to neighboring networks, nor accepted by those networks if
> inadvertently advertised.
>
> That really doesn't sound very toxic.

It isn't.

> k
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]