Subject: [v6ops] ULA usage recommendations

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:22:34 +0000

Hi, all,

With a newly update version, the authors have drawn some recommendations for ULA usage, while there is still controversy for ULA+PA. We summary these recommendations below. We would like to hear the WG opinions, particularly, on whether the benefits of ULA+PA model are worthy its complexity.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-02

1. ULA only is good solution for isolated networks.
2. ULA+PA can ensure stable and specific local communication regardless of the ISP uplink failure, but introduce the complexity of running multiple prefixes.
3. ULA can be used to separate specific routing/prefix locally, the pref64 is a good example of ULA usage.
4. As in RFC6281, ULA can be used as upper-layer identifiers.

Your opinions and comments are appreciated.

Best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:38 PM
> To: Leo Liu(bing)
> Cc: [email-masked]; Sheng Jiang
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-
> analysis-02.txt
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-02.txt has
> been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis
> Revision:	 02
> Title:		 Analysis and recommendation for the ULA usage
> Creation date:	 2012-03-12
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 9
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document describes use cases where ULA address may be
>    beneficially used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat