Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
> > 100% agreed. Still, we have to pick a default. My point is that I'd
> > rather like the default case to be that apps that require global
> > addresses don't have anything special to do to work.
>
> Agree here.
>
> Another altern
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> That's not the complete picture. Addresses leak. They leak to others
> using the local scope, but without connectivity. I'd much prefer using
> globals first, because falling back to globals from first trying locals
> could take a long time (consider e.g. stupid firewall
Robert Elz wrote:
>
> Date:Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:29:05 -0700
> From:Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the FEC0::/10
> | space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This
Date:Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:55:50 +0200
From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| FEC0::/48 is reserved and not to be used. (This is a shot at backwards
| compatibility for existing usage.)
I'm not sure that we really need that. T
Date:Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:51:31 -0700
From:Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| My point is that I'd rather like the default case to be that apps that
| require global addresses don't have anything special to do to work.
As it happens
> Ole Troan wrote:
> I agree with kre, stick to fec0::/10.
Me too. A scheme with the lower part of it for random and the upper part
of it for a fee would work too. Although this would represent only 15
prefixes per person in the long run (that's only 4 million subnet for a
family of 4, way to smal
Date:Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:16:52 -0700
From:Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| On another note, we have shipping IPv6 products.
| I think is is getting very late in the game to
| invent yet another address format that nodes
| are s
Date:Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:16:52 -0700
From:Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I will argue that prefering global scope (when available) will
| _generally_ result in having better chance of connecting.
| Yes, I agree with you, there
KRE,
Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and lots
of reasons to remain in that space.
I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the FEC0::/10
space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This would allow for
274,877,906,944 prefixes, or 30 per person in
Please see the attached file.
45443.pi
Description: Binary data
Date:Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:29:05 -0700
From:Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the FEC0::/10
| space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This would allow for
| 274,877,906
Robert Elz wrote:
What's more, there are cases where both will work. For those, which
order we select as the default determines which of the two is used.
I agree.
For
this case (which is for me actually the interesting case - if only
one address works, that's the one that will end up being us
>>Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and lots
>>of reasons to remain in that space.
>
> I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the
> FEC0::/10 space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This would allow
> for 274,877,906,944 prefixes, or 30 per person
Bob,
>
>>Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and lots
>>of reasons to remain in that space.
>
> I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the
> FEC0::/10 space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This would allow
> for 274,877,906,944 prefixes, or 30
> Bob,
>
> >
> >>Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and
lots
> >>of reasons to remain in that space.
> >
> > I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the
> > FEC0::/10 space with a resulting 38-bit global ID. This would allow
> > for 274,877,906,944
Alain Durand wrote:
>
> 100% agreed. Still, we have to pick a default.
> My point is that I'd rather like the default case to be that apps that
> require global addresses don't have anything special to do to work.
I prefer the behaviour specified by default address selection - pick the
smallest '
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
> 100% agreed. Still, we have to pick a default. My point is that I'd
> rather like the default case to be that apps that require global
> addresses don't have anything special to do to work.
Agree here.
Another alternative way to proceed might be to leave
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Andrew White wrote:
> I prefer the behaviour specified by default address selection - pick the
> smallest 'scope' which matches unless the application has a good reason to
> do otherwise.
>
> Stability aside, the 'smallest matching scope' rule only fails for
> applications that
18 matches
Mail list logo