Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy

[Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>]

>Thanks for the attention.
>
>Before moving to "draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-04.txt", I would  
>like to discuss on what is the best way to this WG with solution  
>draft.  Because "draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-04.txt" describes  
>specific protocol to send policy from dhcp server.
>
>If all of you think we can skip the discussion about solution 
>(analysis for the solution) and welcome to move to get into protocol  
>work, it is also happy with me.  How do you think?
>
>Or in parallel with solution draft, if we can discuss on the  
>distribution of site-wide RFC3484 policy it it better.
>
>Here we already have "problem statement" and "requirement", the  
>problems wants to be solved, doesn't it?

	it is a bit of "over the top" comment, but my take on this problem is
	(as mentioned at the wg meeting) like below:

	- the entire "source address selection" stuff was a mistake.
	  network has to be deployed so that any ip6_src/ip6_dst pair can go
	  out of the organization somehow.
	  (a) if there's some issue like uRPF in some of your ISPs, the egress
	      routers in your organization should implement source-based
	      routing to workaround it.
	  (b) the whole idea of ULA/ULA-x should be killed at once.
	      we killed site-locals because to this.  do not re-invite
	      rosemary's baby.
	- alain durand said that he would prefer to have single IPv6 address
	  on a node.  i would not go that far (for renumbering and multi-
	  address multihoming) but i object to have addresses with different
	  reachability or "scoping".
	- so, there's no need for you to think about "distributing source
	  address selection policy".

	tnx.

itojun