Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy

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

>> i have been against of the idea of
>> 	- having addresses with different reachability, including site-local
>> 	  and ULA (which is zombie of site-local)
>
>I think we understand that you don't like this, but we did reach rough
>consensus in the ipv6 WG to define ULAs with complete understanding that
>global scope is not global reachability.
>
>Just to repeat the argument, reachability is set by router configurations
>so you cannot assume that *any* prefix has global reachability,
>whether it is PA, PI, or ULA.

	true, i know that.  because of
	- BGP peering policies between ISPs
	- nationwide censorship/whatever
	- organization filtering/whatever
	you cannot really assume you have a full reachability towards the
	entire planet even if you are using global address (2000::/3).

	but the degree of reachability (or unreachability) is entirely
	different between site-local/ULA and global address.  there's no
	comparison.

itojun