Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Fred Templin Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:13:44 -0800

Tony,

I agree that 'draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm' has served the useful
purpose of focusing the discussion, but (like an RFP or BAA) its sole
purpose was to issue a call for solution alternatives; not to propose
solution alternatives or otherwise seek a more active role in itself.

As such, I believe the 'hain-templin' document should remain current
only until an acceptable solution has been identified and progressed.
Thereafter, the 'hain-templin'  document should gracefully expire
with perhaps a "tombstone" marker left behind as a matter of
historical record, i.e., I don't believe any further progression
will be necessary.

Regards,

Fred L. Templin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Tony Hain wrote:

Alain,

The current document does not enforce a business model (earlier versions did), but does set technical constraints. Personally I don't think it is possible to 'Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding', so the requirement 'without any procedure for de-allocation' creates a problem once hoarding has been detected. I do not object to the current document as this specific issue will be resolved by an update once the system is in operation and practical experience exposes that flaw.

Recommending against all-zero's is not only a waste of time, it specifically
directs people to the thing you are trying to avoid. There is nothing that a
document can do to prevent a consultant from configuring all of his
customers with the same prefix. He can run [RANDOM] once and use that
everywhere, yet is in full compliance with the document. Even more of a
problem, an equipment manufacturer could run [RANDOM] once and burn that
value into every piece of equipment they ship. The best a document can do is
highlight the issues raised by duplicate assignments, and provide a
mechanism which solves them if used as directed. As much as some people want
to, it is not the IETF's job to legislate operational behavior. The language
in this document is appropriate and it should be published.

Tony

BTW: why wasn't draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-04.txt sent at the same
time as the unique address & deprecation drafts? They are all dealing with
the same issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain
Durand
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:22 AM
To: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden
Cc: The IESG; Margaret Wasserman; IPv6 Mailing List; Alain Durand; Thomas
Narten
Subject: Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Dears ADs,

I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to
advance this document
without answering two major issues I raised during the last call:

- Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space, which is
very different from
  the notion of stewardship that are now in place for any IP address
allocation today.
  There are a number of legal questions not answered around this point.
  More, this is imposing a business model to the entity that will be in
charge of the allocations,
  and I believe that the IETF should refrain from imposing business
model.

- The document does not contain any wording recommending against the
'all zero' self allocation.
  It merely say that:
  "Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
   algorithm consistent with [RANDOM].". However, it should be noted
that  [RANDOM]
   or RFC1750 does not contain any mandate, just provide ideas on how
to do things.
   An 'all zero' self allocation would create the prefix FD00::/48 and
will be very tempting
   to use by many.
  This working group just spend more than a year to deprecate the site
local
  fec0::/10 prefixes, just to reinvent it here.

As the request to advance this document came from the Ipv6 wg chairs,
representing the wg,
it is my opinion that the IPv6 Working Groug has made an incorrect
technical choice which
places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s)
in significant
jeopardy.

As the request to advance this document has already been sent to you,
ADs,
this is my appeal to you to reject it and send it back to the working
group.

- Alain.

On Feb 18, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:

Margaret & Thomas,
    On behalf of the IPv6 working group, the chairs request the
advancement of:
        Title           : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
        Author(s)       : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
        Filename        : draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt
        Pages           : 16
        Date            : 2004-2-13
as a Proposed Standard.  The -02 version completed working group last
call on 02/02/2004.  This version addresses issues raised during the
last call period.
Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG co-chairs
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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

Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Reply via email to