[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)

Tony Hain wrote:
[..]
>> What is the difference between having:
>>  2001:db8::/48 + fc00:db8:5678:1::/64 + fc00:db8:5678:2::/64
>> and:
>>  2001:db8::/48 + 2001:db8:5678:1::/64 + 2001:db8:5678:2::/64
> 
> Nothing. If they announce the full deaggregate for the ULA space the impact
> would be the same as using PI deaggregates. The value is to have fc00:/8
> lead to the demarcation for all the partners, rather than explicitly
> announce every partner subnet throughout their own organization.

Ok, if I understood correctly (guess a little drawing would help even
more ;), you mean that, taking the above example, they will only have a
2001:db8::/48 and fc00::/8 route in their tables and nothing else?
Otherwise they would end up with a large amount of /64's in their
internal tables pointing to the partner.

Also, they know that fc00::/8 is 'private' and that they need to
firewall that in a different way. Which is a good property.

But how is this different from having a single default to the edge
routers + firewalls, which take care of the routing tables to the
endsite? You then have a single location to maintain, and those entries
are then popping up only there and nowhere else.

Also, this sort of implies, from what I understood, that every host on
the network will get multiple addresses, at least one from PI, and one
from the ULA prefix. I do hope then that source address selection is
being done correctly. Fortunately, fec00::/7 is at the top of the
address space and thus can't easily be confused, like with 6to4 which is
in the 'middle' and suddenly does get chosen for 2003::/16 and all other
addresses, while the 2001::/16 prefix is used for 2001::/16 addresses.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070508/1b022434/attachment.sig>