On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 00:37 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
Great. Let's make this PI space available FIRST and THEN we can get
rid
of site-locals with little trouble.
|Yes, aggregation can not happen,
|but, so what? I claim the number of routes today is still manageable,
|and the _r
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 13:11, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > Great. Let's work on that problem now.
>
> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local should go a
Dan Lanciani wrote:
What makes you think that the apps people who say it *will not work* are
correct? Especially when they are talking about models that are already in
use?
Which models would that be exacly? I hope you are not talking about the lets
run-everything-over-http-model... The bottom
Hi Mika,
At 02:21 PM 4/5/2003 +0300, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 13:11, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local
Hi David,
At 05:05 PM 4/4/2003 -0600, David Borman wrote:
Well, if I am allowed to, I am now changing my vote to:
"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
Yes, you are allowed to change your opinion and we will
consider your new position in our consensus determination.
The primar
Hi Margaret,
The goals you state below are very worthy and, once there are
satisfactory solutions employing unambiguous addressing, I will
certainly be vying for the privilege to be among the first to implement
them.
However, at this point deprecating site-local addresses will simply slow
down re
FYI and possible comment.
Send comments to iesg/ietf mailing lists, or for discussions
join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Bert
-Original Message-
From: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: zaterdag 5 april 2003 0:49
Subject: Last Call: Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label to Proposed
Randy Bush wrote:
> just in case folk have short memories, i am strongly against
> site-locals. they attempt to solve a routing problem with an
> address hack, a la rfc 1918. they are unneeded complexity.
> now is the time to abjure them.
They solve an addressing problem PI, where other propo
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> ...
> What we _really_ want is to achieve all three of the
> following things simultaneously:
>
> - All addresses are globally routable (note that this doesn't
> preclude filtering some addresses or
> address/port combos).
> - Addres
Tony,
So even though the routing research group has not come up with a
solution that simultaneously addresses all three of these in the last 10
years of focused work, the IPv6 WG will promise to come up with a
solution quickly if we just deprecate the only viable approach we know
of first. I guess
> NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing.
>
> They are needed for access control in enterprise (as opposed to
> home/private use) networks
i.e. let's solve a routing problem with an address model hack.
pfui!
IETF
Margaret,
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 19:31, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Tony, allowing an interface to have two addresses:
>
> - One that is globally routable and globally accessible, and
> - One that is stable and local,
>
> is _exactly_ what I am proposing.
>
> However, I am prop
"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
Allison
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/
Margaret,
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Tony, allowing an interface to have two addresses:
> - One that is globally routable and globally accessible,
> and
> - One that is stable and local,
> is _exactly_ what I am proposing.
> However, I am proposing that there is _no reason_ why
> the stabl
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 00:37 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> Great. Let's make this PI space available FIRST and THEN we can get
|> rid
|> of site-locals with little trouble.
|>
|> |Yes, aggregation can not happen,
Mika Liljeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> > Great. Let's work on that problem now.
|>
|> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
|> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
|> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local should go away.
Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|>What makes you think that the apps people who say it *will not work* are
|>correct? Especially when they are talking about models that are already in
|>use?
|>
|>
|>
|Which models would that be exacly?
Please re-read the messag
Hi Dan,
Please help me to understand something. I have been trying to get people to
look at the portable identifier/routing problem for _years_.
Various people _have_ been looking at this problem for years. In fact,
the IPv6 WG toyed with it for a while in the mid-1990s. I agree that
this is _t
"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
Atsushi Onoe
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.su
Dan Lanciani wrote:
the causes--of a restrictive address allocation policy. Would you deprive
people of the address space they need to run the applications they need to
run just to make it easier to write some other super-apps that those users
No I want people to have global addresses!
--
Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|>the causes--of a restrictive address allocation policy. Would you deprive
|>people of the address space they need to run the applications they need to
|>run just to make it easier to write some other super-apps that those users
|>
Dan Lanciani wrote:
That may be what you want, but that is not what you have been saying. You
are advocating taking away private address space. Contrary to recent popular
(yet incomprehensible) thought these actions are not equivalent. How about
you FIRST give people global addresses and THEN A
That may be what you want, but that is not what you have been saying. You
are advocating taking away private address space.
What private address space do you think that these people have now
that we are advocating "taking away"?
The site-local prefix is defined in the addressing architecture,
bu
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>Please help me to understand something. I have been trying to get people to
|>look at the portable identifier/routing problem for _years_.
|
|Various people _have_ been looking at this problem for years. In fact,
|the IPv6 WG toyed with it for a wh
Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|>
|>That may be what you want, but that is not what you have been saying. You
|>are advocating taking away private address space. Contrary to recent popular
|>(yet incomprehensible) thought these actions are not equivalent. How a
YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing
-Seb
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Dir
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|So, it is certainly safe to say that we don't have _any_
|proposal on the table for the usage of site-local addresses
|that currently has WG consensus. So, what is it that you
|think we are "taking away"?
|
|The proposal is to deprecate a prefix in t
"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
Bill
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pu
28 matches
Mail list logo
