On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mohacsi Janos Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:19 AM To: Konrad Rosenbaum Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: simple securityThe current RFC 3484 does not cope properly with ULA addresses,What do you mean by not cope? ULA and the GUA have global scope and the longest prefix match works fine for packet forwarding if both a ULA and a GUA are configured on a network interface. I don't see any gotcha with RFC 3484 with use of ULA or with use of ULA and a GUA on a network interface.
Yes. You are right, but in the context, that I wrote I don't see it is enough. If you have two nodes with both GUA and ULA, but different subnets inside a site:
[node1]----------[router]---------[node2] Both GUA and ULA addresses are configured in the DNS...What to configure no node1 and node2 to prefer ULA communication between node1 and node2?
And contrary, if I want prefer GUA usage between nodes?
Can I do it with the current default RFC 3484?
In the default policy table
Prefix Precedence Label
::1/128 50 0
::/0 40 1
2002::/16 30 2
::/96 20 3
::ffff:0:0/96 10 4
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi