Hi Bob,
A few thoughts / questions / comments on your draft :
3.0 Proposal & 3.1 Global Token
* 8 bit areas
I'm curious as to why you chose to allocate 8 bits for the area.
Allocating 6 bits for area would allow aggregation to take place on the
/16 bit boundary. I think this would make it a e
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> ...
> I realize that the IETF cannot enforce such a restriction.
> But, we can write a standard that says "these addresses are
> intended for use on isolated networks and must not be used on
> non-isolated networks" (or equivalent).
My concern is the choice of 'mu
Bob Hinden wrote:
3.2 Assignment
The globally unique site-local prefixes defined in this document are
intended to be manually assigned to router interfaces in a site. The
global token used in each prefix would be created from an EUI-48
address found in an interface on the subnet.
There is no
Alain,
At 02:10 PM 12/9/2002, Alain Durand wrote:
This proposal is making the assumption that MAC addreses are somehow stable.
I think this is a bad idea.
MAC addresses are stable. What may not be stable is their life in on an
interface in a specific machine. The words in the draft are:
Another issue is that certain quad fast ethernet vendors (e.g. Sun)
make 4-port cards where each interface has the same MAC address,
which would mean I assume that by default each of the subnets run off
those ports would have the same /64 network prefix?
The DLink 570TX quad cards we use don't
This proposal is making the assumption that MAC addreses are somehow stable.
I think this is a bad idea.
A simple change of a NIC card in a router will start a renumbering event,
and, although somehow simpler than in IPv4, IPv6 renumbering event are far
from painless.
On our servers, we recommend
> - We don't currently have a fully developed plan for
> aggregable, scalable IPv6 PI addressing. Some
> folks are working on this problem, but no one
> has claimed to have a full answer yet.
AFAIK, addressing isn't the problem, routing
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : IPv6 Globally Unique Site-Local Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden
Filename : draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2002-12-6
This internet draft describes a proposal for IPv6 Globa
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:50:04 -0500
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: "unique enough" [RE: globally unique site local addresses]
...
> I have the following things running around in my brain, and they aren't
> converging:
>
> - We need to provide PI addressin
> We had three largish groups -- the folks who wanted to eliminate site-local
> addresses from the architecture altogether, the folks who wanted to limit
> site-locals to disconnected networks (the "limited usage" case) and the
> folks who wanted to limit site-locals to sites that don't touch other
> > not having to have a connection to the public v6 internet in order to
> > get an address block, or if you are connected, having a prefix which
> > is stable across changes in ISPs.
>
> Having a connection or not is a policy decision. Stable addresses is an
> issue on creating PI space. There i
You where not at the rebellion/ad-hoc/let's get out of here and go for bee
multi6 meeting on Thursday in Atlanta.
I was not actually aware of these meetings until later... I have
since joined the mailing list.
One thing I have been think of. Do we know what the increased
prefix-length does
I had proposed limiting the use of site-locals to completely isolated
networks (i.e. test networks and/or networks that will never be
connected to other networks). This would give administrators of
those networks an address space to use (FECO::/10) for those networks
The first question that co
GUPI would not be globally routable. It would be a way to make sites
privately communicate, as neither the "limited usage" or the
"moderate
usage" of site-locals provides this.
And compared to global addresses the advantage is?
Besides not having to go to a RIR?
not having to have a connectio
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6
Author(s) : R. Gilligan, S. Thomson
File
Our IPv6 supports Router functionality for platforms like
VxWorks, QNX, OSE, etc... Please have a look at www.futsoft.com
~sivaram
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Digambar Rasal
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2002 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This page should be a good place to start :
http://www.ipv6.org/impl/index.html
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 22:12, Digambar Rasal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are process of changing network to Ipv6 and looking for switches and
> routers those are supporting Ipv6 or Ipv6 and Ipv4 . If anybody has idea
> about
Hi,
we are process of changing network to Ipv6 and looking for switches and
routers those are supporting Ipv6 or Ipv6 and Ipv4 . If anybody has idea
about it please let me know
Digambar Rasal
Controlnet India Pvt Ltd
Verna Goa.
---
18 matches
Mail list logo