[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt


This is also how I expect that ULAs will be used.
Split DNS solves the _destination_ address selection problem, after which source address selection can be done using the usual longest- match model. 

Margaret

On Aug 3, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:


That's what I've always assumed would be the usage of
ULAs.

    Brian

Templin, Fred L wrote:

On split-DNS, I have been studying address configuration in
a different context lately (NETLMM wg) and am leaning toward
a model in which nodes within an enterprise would use global
addresses only for communications with nodes in other
enterprises and would use ULAs for communications with nodes
in the same enterprise. So, that would automatically imply
split-DNS. Would that be a problem?
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  -----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 2:30 PM 
To: Tony Hain
Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
...

One of the problems with NAT, at least from my perspective, is that
they require a split-DNS employment to get local name resolution.
Are we expecting that NAP will have that same property?
Split-DNS would make the non-local case more efficient, but it is not 
a hard

requirement like it is with IPv4/nat. Given that enterprises have

nodes that
they don't want the world to know about they are likely to be running 
some

form of split-DNS anyway, so I don't see this as a big deal either

way.
Personal opinion: in enterprise network deployments, split DNS is as
likely to go away as firewalls. If an enterprise has internal servers
that it wishes to hide from the outside world, split DNS is inevitable. As Tony says, NAP will work without it (i.e. if a ULA appears in global DNS, it will be unrouteable) but I bet it will be as widespread in IPv6 
as it is for IPv4.
    Brian