I look forward to reading an ID describing a set of necessary (not
sufficient!) requirements fulfilled by scoped unicast addressing -
i.e. the problems which cannot be solved by *any other* mechanism.
personally I'm not interested in having this group spend any time trying
to justify a
Geoff Huston wrote:
At 06:30 PM 6/08/2003 +1000, Aidan Williams wrote:
I can't see significant differences in process between globally
unique local address allocation and a globally unique PI address
allocation.
I'd offer the view that there's a lot of difference.
OK, I can see how
A 'real life' deployment scenario.
(a) I set up a local network. I currently have no ISP, but I want my
network to 'just work' out of the box. This network consists of (initially)
three routers, plus other infrastructure.
(b) Sometime later I decide I want internet connectivity, so I connect
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
Just responding to a few points..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions
to be forced to maintain a stale address.
Why not? There's no problem with that, really. You
Michael,
For a change I mostly agree (will detail below what I don't like) with
what you just posted, especially:
Michael Thomas wrote:
so even these small sensible steps that you propose
nonetheless seem grave in their global implications.
and
But I'm sorry, if NAT's become a de-facto
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the long reply; I found it very interesting. A few more
comments in-line..
(hopefully this won't drift too far off-topic..)
On 7 Aug 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 17:47, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
Just responding to a
A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having
an alternative
solution available. This would mean that the working group
should treat
the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents
outlined above
independently from each other. If there was no consensus on
an
Peter Barany wrote:
Hi,
Two questions about this I-D:
(1) In Section 3.2.3 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm, step (1)
of the algorithm states:
Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format (NTP)
Question: Would it be possible to have the I-D specify that how
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the long reply; I found it very interesting.
Thanks for reading it.
A few more
comments in-line..
(hopefully this won't drift too far off-topic..)
Hopefully.
On 7 Aug 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07
Andrew,
Would you mind if we put this sequence in the requirements doc?
Tony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew White
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:55 PM
To: IPng
Subject: Real life scenario - requirements (local
Bob Hinden wrote:
A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an alternative
solution available.
A.
--
Dean C. Strik Eindhoven University of Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ipnet6.org/
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. --
The few self-described apps people I've seen take
a stand have to my recollection been strongly
against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
Have I missed anybody? It seems to me that people
with strong app and/or host kernel background
ought to be given a disproportionate voice in the
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
It's whether an application can assume that global addresses are never
filtered, and the answer is that it can't. Ergo, global addresses are
also scoped addresses.
There is a difference of a couple of degrees of magnitude here.
Pekka Savola wrote:
Just responding to a few points..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions
to be forced to maintain a stale address.
Why not? There's no problem with that, really. You can continue using
bogus
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Michael Thomas wrote:
[...]
I really don't want to drag this into a meta
argument about the merits of various solutions,
but only to point out that the entire document is
structured in a way that the answer is foregone.
[...]
Exactly.
Some others have also voiced concerns
I prefer option (B), but I would find option (A) acceptable.
Margaret
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:
16 matches
Mail list logo
