Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy

[Ruri Hiromi <hiromi@inetcore.com>]

Oops, let me correct the draft name and URI, it is;
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select- 
opt-04.txt

Regards,

On 2007/07/26, at 7:25, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 24-jul-2007, at 10:10, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>
> > > Before moving to "draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-04.txt",
>
> Can't find a draft with that name...
>
> > 	- 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.
>
> That ship has sailed. Even if you could, through some kind of  
> herculian effort, make it so that only a single IPv6 address is  
> available per host rather than 1 or more for 1 or more interfaces,  
> there's going to be the issue of having both an IPv4 and an IPv6  
> address. I currently have a mail client that won't fall back to  
> IPv4 if IPv6 doesn't work. That's not acceptable.
>
> > 	  (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.
>
> When a host has selected addresses, other boxes can't overrule  
> that. The best thing you can do is generate a quick unreachable so  
> the host can retry with a different source/dest address combination.
>
> > 	  (b) the whole idea of ULA/ULA-x should be killed at once.
>
> No it shouldn't. People want it, no reasonable counter arguments  
> have been presented.
>
> > 	- 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".
>
> You should have spoken up somewhere in the last century. This stuff  
> is a done deal today, no point in turning back halfway and turning  
> back completely is not possible at this point.
>
> > 	- so, there's no need for you to think about "distributing source
> > 	  address selection policy".
>
> Deciding for other people what they don't need is extremely impolite.

-------------------------------
Ruri Hiromi
hiromi@inetcore.com

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature