Subject: RE: The purpose of ULA-G/C

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)

> Not to pick on James' post, but several have mentioned that
> large routing realms would be one reason to require ULA-G/C
> and it has not yet been suggested that the reverse DNS could
> itself be thought of as a "large routing realm" of sorts
> (depending on how applications use the information they find
> there). ULA-G/C would ideally allow collision-free population
> of the reverse DNS even with O(10^6) or more delegations.

Not to pick on Fred's post, but making local reverse DNS globally
accessible is not recommended.  It exposes information which is
better kept private.  Fred believes that it will make for
seamless integration when two organizations decide to merge their
local networks.  It would probably make the reverse DNS aspect of
such a merger more seamless, but it certainly won't make any
other aspect any easier.  Given that considerable planning will
go into all the other aspects of such a merger (securing the virtual
connections, bypassing just the right amount of firewalling,
provisioning backup links), the effort saved on making reverse DNS
work seems negligible.                       -- George Mitchell

> I can't comment [further] on Paul's proposal other than to say
> that *some* authority(s) needs to be responsible for the
> collision free delegations.

I still trust my computer's random number generator more than a
centrally-operated entity.                 -- George Mitchell

> Fred
> [email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:36:20 -0700

> work seems negligible.                       -- George Mitchell

So it sounds to me like this particular application, at least in your 
case, would be better served by ULA-L.  However, there are lots of other 
applications, that don't involve enterprise mergers, but private 
internetworking, that would benefit from the ability to get globally 
registered ULA-G space and delegate ip6.arpa DNS authority to globally 
reachable DNS servers.

> centrally-operated entity.                 -- George Mitchell

Then you definitely should stick with ULA-L, but I hope you won't deny 
others the opportunity to get globally registered private addresses for 
situations they consider appropriate.

-Scott

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:57:53 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: The purpose of ULA-G/C
> 

Not all "organizations" will be so difficult to merge as George
is describing. This depends entirely on what is your definition
of organization/enterprise/site, and is there a one-size-fits all?

Fred