[ipv6-wg] [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fri Mar 27 14:44:24 CET 2015
Hi, > On 26 Mar 2015, at 14:42, Enno Rey <erey at ernw.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:26:14PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I forgot that RFC-6724 (Default Address Selection for Internet >> Protocol Version 6) now explicitly lists ULAs, so indeed they would >> not do any harm in trying to reach a dual-stack target. > > this would assume that > > a) the probes are supposed to follow RFC 6724. are they? > b) they actually _do_ this (follow RFC 6724) in practice. can this be confirmed? [keeping the wide variety of potential IPv6 node behavior in mind] If RFC 6434 (IPv6 Node Requirements) is being followed then RFC 6724 (as RFC 3484-bis) MUST be followed. But older implementations may only support RFC 3484. Further, some implementations appear to do other things (as I believe OS X does, with its preferences for IPv4 vs IPv6). Tim
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] [atlas] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]