Andrew,
> Andrew White wrote:
> - If a stable global prefix is available, we strongly recommend
> using that and not using site locals.
This ignores the fact that many people will use site-locals because
addresses that are not publicly routable are a requirement, and this
regardless of the fact t
> Andrew White wrote:
> My short summary:
> (a) Within a "site", a site local address works at least
> as well as a global address.
> (b) Outside a site, a site local address DOES NOT WORK.
> I'd say "MUST NOT WORK", but that is a little hard to enforce.
> (c) Given (b), the issues with site locals
Andrew,
> Andrew White wrote:
> Note that site local prefixes have no requirement for
> global administration or registration, but are likewise
> not guaranteed unique, nor expected to be routeable
> outside the site.
I disagree with the wording of this. Site-locals MUST NOT be routable
outside t
Title: 메시지
We are working on it. See www.6power.org.
Regards,
Jordi
- Original Message -
From:
Soohong Daniel Park
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:16
AM
Subject: IPv6 over PLC ?
Almost technic for IPv6 over
different media was release
Title: 메시지
Almost technic for IPv6 over
different media was released, but i couldn't find IPv6 over
PLC.
= Soohong
Daniel Park
Research Engineer
Mobile Platform
Group Digital Media R&D
Center Samsung Electronics
Co
> Since you don't answer the question, I'll answer it myself. Site-locals
> without NAT do not break applications.
tell you what. I'll set up a cron job to keep forwarding the same
messages to you over and over again until you get a clue.
but I won't cc the list.
Keith
--
>>> Keith Moore wrote:
>>> using SLs in this way would break applications. we need
>>> to discourage this.
>> What do you mean by "would break applications"? what is
>> being broken? End-to-end is preserved, there is no NAT
>> nor ALGs, what's your problem here?
> We've been discussing this set
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > using SLs in this way would break applications. we need to
> > discourage this.
>
> What do you mean by "would break applications"? what is being broken?
> End-to-end is preserved, there is no NAT nor ALGs, what's your problem
> here?
Michael,
We've been discussing thi
> The issues with global vs. site-local routing in a "site"
> that had multiple locations connected by leased lines were
> dismissed, because the multiple locations should be more than
> one "site". But, even if Wind River would be forced to have
> 20-something sites by this rule, we would stil
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> IMHO, the relation between SLs and renumbering is this: SLs
>> are used in parts of the network that have no access to the
>> public Internet in order to avoid the renumbering of that
>> part in case of an ISP change on the part that does have
>> access to the outside. This i
> IMHO, the relation between SLs and renumbering is this: SLs are used in
> parts of the network that have no access to the public Internet in order
> to avoid the renumbering of that part in case of an ISP change on the
> part that does have access to the outside. This is especially important
> on
> >Yes, it is reasonable to assume that a /48 global prefix corresponds to
> >a site-local scope. I wouldn't rule out other arrangements but I think
> >this will be the common situation.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> The issues with global vs. site-local routing in a "site" that
> had multiple locatio
>From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to
be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list.
===
NOTE WELL
All statements related to the activities of
Yes, it is reasonable to assume that a /48 global prefix corresponds to
a site-local scope. I wouldn't rule out other arrangements but I think
this will be the common situation.
Not necessarily.
The issues with global vs. site-local routing in a "site" that
had multiple locations connected by
[I'm trying to get caught on the thread after being away for several
days.]
Yes, it is reasonable to assume that a /48 global prefix corresponds to
a site-local scope. I wouldn't rule out other arrangements but I think
this will be the common situation.
Rich
> -Original Message-
> From:
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> You mean, as a temporary state between renumbering
>> between two global addresses?
> Keith Moore wrote:
> not just then - during a period prior to renumbering,
> during overlap, or afterward, do the scopes of SLs and
> prefixes necessarily coincide?
They might, and the add
Hi Keith,
The architecture does not require any correspondence between
site boundaries and the sets of links upon which a single global
routing prefix is advertised.
Margaret
At 12:10 PM 11/7/02, Keith Moore wrote:
question:
is it reasonable to assume that if a network is advertising one or
> > is it reasonable to assume that if a network is advertising
> > one or more global prefixes via ND/RD, that the scope of
> > a 'site' for SL addresses corresponds to the scope in which
> > those global prefixes are advertised? in other words, would
> > it really be reasonable to assume that one
> Keith Moore wrote:
> is it reasonable to assume that if a network is advertising
> one or more global prefixes via ND/RD, that the scope of
> a 'site' for SL addresses corresponds to the scope in which
> those global prefixes are advertised? in other words, would
> it really be reasonable to assu
question:
is it reasonable to assume that if a network is advertising one or more
global prefixes via ND/RD, that the scope of a 'site' for SL addresses
corresponds to the scope in which those global prefixes are advertised?
in other words, would it really be reasonable to assume that one could
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:30:48AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > This seems like a good start.
>
> Indeed, shame it didn't come 200 emails ago ;-) It seems some concensus
> can be reached on the assumption that site locals will continue to exist,
> although many of us may be happy to not use th
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:44:36AM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Is this situation - a mobile node using site-local addresses moving to a
> new "site" - an opportunity for inadvertent (or possibly even malicious)
> TCP session hijacking? I.e., is the problem worse in the case of active
> a
At 08:39 AM 11/7/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting
> > apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to
> > a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person
> > named "mary" in whatever town he happe
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:30:48AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> This seems like a good start.
Indeed, shame it didn't come 200 emails ago ;-) It seems some concensus
can be reached on the assumption that site locals will continue to exist,
although many of us may be happy to not use them. Darwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original intent in the scoped addr arch was that the site-local
zone id would be indicate which interfaces are within a site. The
filtering between sites is handled by the forwarding code.
Vendors that support these zone ids will have default values for the
zone ids.
>The original intent in the scoped addr arch was that the site-local
>zone id would be indicate which interfaces are within a site. The
>filtering between sites is handled by the forwarding code.
>
>Vendors that support these zone ids will have default values for the
>zone ids. If the vendors don
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> >>>What I meant to say that to implement site-locals properly in a router,
> >>>the vendor should not be OK to say "we support access-lists, you can use
> >>>them to configure site-loca
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
What I meant to say that to implement site-locals properly in a router,
the vendor should not be OK to say "we support access-lists, you can use
them to configure site-local borders" or that "we have nice firewall
products, wanna buy one
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > What I meant to say that to implement site-locals properly in a router,
> > the vendor should not be OK to say "we support access-lists, you can use
> > them to configure site-local borders" or that "we have nice firewall
> > products, wanna buy one?".
>
> What I meant to say that to implement site-locals properly in a router,
> the vendor should not be OK to say "we support access-lists, you can use
> them to configure site-local borders" or that "we have nice firewall
> products, wanna buy one?".
I'm not sure about that. Having routers try to a
> > I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting
> > apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to
> > a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person
> > named "mary" in whatever town he happens to be in (if there is one),
> > or that he'll
This seems like a good start.
I think it would help to provide some advice to applications regarding
site-locals (and for that matter link-locals). e.g.
- don't use site-locals in referrals unless you have no global addresses.
- use global addresses in preference to site-locals when opening new
Here's a suggestion, which I think fits with the logic of
Thomas Narten's comment too:
The sin6_flowinfo field is a 32-bit field intended to contain
flow-related information. The exact way this field is mapped
into a packet is not currently specified.
I don't think we should hold up the
> existence of IPv6 firewalls, then these firewalls can also enforce site
> boundaries.
Sure, but that is not sufficient to satisfy addr-archv3 2.5.6 last
paragraph IMO.
Why not?
If a router is not on a site-boundary, it doesn't need to do anything
to enforce site boundaries. In Bob's examp
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > > existence of IPv6 firewalls, then these firewalls can also enforce site
> > > boundaries.
> >
> >Sure, but that is not sufficient to satisfy addr-archv3 2.5.6 last
> >paragraph IMO.
>
> Why not?
>
> If a router is not on a site-boundary, it does
35 matches
Mail list logo
