Subject: Re: slaac-renum: New rev of draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-08.txt)

From: Philip Homburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:51:22 +0200

>> I stop responding in this discussion. I said ULAs work fine if they are
>> not in the policy table. 
>
>Perhaps, but then address selection works *differently*, and application layer
> code may be affected as a result. For that reason, they belong in this discus
>sion as a special case.

My point is that currently it is possible to introduce a 3rd type of 
global addresses without changes to the host. For example, a company may
use two ULA prefixes internally with completely different semantics.

This draft breaks that because it introduces new failure modes.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 00:29:12 -0300

> use two ULA prefixes internally with completely different semantics.

You can't affirm that.

Simple example: let's say that that site locals were reintroduced. THey 
would need special handling, since otherwise they might be considered 
globals, and used to communicate with GUAs. If the address is not 
treated in a special way, things will break.

i.e., special stuff needs special handling.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492