Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion

I agree the fix belongs in 6man - perhaps just 6724bis? There are a few
other ideas to address the problem too, would those stay in v6ops or move
to 6man also?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 10:08 AM David Farmer <farmer=
40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I support WG adoption of this draft.
>
> Further, I support actually fixing the issue, most likely by making RFC
> 6724, section 10.6, mandatory, rather than optional as it currently is in
> RFC 6724. Additionally, I think a mechanism for the network to be able to
> signal more than one /48 as local, and/or that a shorter ULA prefix should
> be considered local, say a /44, /40 or even shorter, would be very useful
> as well. However, I suspect actually fixing the issue belongs in 6man and
> not v6ops.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 10:00 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At IETF 114, Nick discussed draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula, which is ongoing
>> in another thread. He asked for the WG to adopt the draft; should we?
>>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

-- 
Ed Horley
ed@hexabuild.io | (925) 876-6604
Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
https://hexabuild.io
And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/