Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Understood. Most operators would like to use ULA for SRV6
> deployments so do we need to carve out block out of ULA space just as
> we are doing for GUA to conform with RFC 4291. ULA has is a big enough
> block FC00::/7 so we could carve a block out of that. Does not need to
> be as large a block allocation for SIDs as it would not be advertised
> to the internet does not require to be globally unique.I'd really rather that SR6 did not use ULA. when it leaks, it will be impossible to track the source of the leak. Not sure which parts of the previous message were Gyan and which were Brian, but it was said: > We should qualify the IANA request to make the /16 non internet routable > identical to ULA addressing. > If that is what we desire then why don’t we make it standard BCP to > always use ULA for the operators SRV6 domain. THIS is IPv4 scarcity thinking. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
