Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Andrew White
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Robert Elz
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Robert Elz
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

RE: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Michel Py
> 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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Robert Elz
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Robert Elz
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Bob Hinden
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

Re: 45443-343556

2003-06-05 Thread iesg-secretary
Please see the attached file. 45443.pi Description: Binary data

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Robert Elz
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Alain Durand
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Ole Troan
>>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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Tim Hartrick
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

RE: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Christian Huitema
> 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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Andrew White
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 '

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Pekka Savola
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

Re: Status of

2003-06-05 Thread Pekka Savola
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