Hi Jim,
I'm still not sure I understand your position?
I'm not arguing that general-purpose apps should
do anything special to support link-local addresses.
For the most part, I doubt they'll ever see them,
since link-local addresses won't be in the DNS.
Exactly my point in last mail
Keith Moore wrote:
Some apps care about having consistent view of addressing across all
locations in the network.
The trouble is that while filters exist this will NEVER be true, in the
general case. Having multiple addresses per host confuses the issue as
well.
Similarly, the arguments
At 10:00 PM 8/21/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
This is a clear capability advantage that IPv6 brings over IPv4.
The only thing holding it back is the obstinate views of those who don't
want to make the scenarios work. After-all they don't work in IPv4, so they
must not be really needed, right???
'I strongly disagree that this practice adds value to IPv6.', as a response
to a vendor that was describing where they find value in general app use of
LL is being obstructionist.
no, shipping code that does this is being obstructionist to apps that don't
work under those conditions.
So you are going to tell the army private that is ducking the barrage of
gunfire that he can get the critical info he needs from the marine he just
bumped into, if he only types these (what to him are pseudo-random) 32 hex
characters for both the src dst. Or you are going to answer all the
Let me try to clarify my position. All I'm saying is that if an app
works fine with link-locals, and that's all the user has, why not let
the user use that app?
Nothing wrong with that. Where I draw the line is encouraging use of LL as a
general means of providing ad hoc network service, or
Some apps care about having consistent view of addressing across all
locations in the network.
The trouble is that while filters exist this will NEVER be true, in the
general case.
filters don't mess up addressing. ambiguous addresses do.
In closing, three guidelines / work items:
Ralph Droms wrote:
Tony - (assuming they == IPv6LL) can you explain why IPv6LL
will work while they don't work in IPv4? My experience
with IPv4LL has been uniformly bad; I've never intentionally
used an IPv4LL address and the automatic assignment of an
IPv4LL address has on several
Keith Moore wrote:
or to state this better, it's fine if apps simply avoid
passing some kinds of addresses around as long as they can
easily tell which ones to pass around and which ones to not
pass around.
Yet you want to ban apps from recognizing the defined flags FE80, FEC0,
FC00, ...
Keith Moore wrote:
or to state this better, it's fine if apps simply avoid
passing some kinds of addresses around as long as they can
easily tell which ones to pass around and which ones to not
pass around.
Yet you want to ban apps from recognizing the defined flags FE80,
FEC0,
What this bumps into here is the fallacious assumption by some
app developers that the routing space is globally flat, so if by
chance there is more than one address, every available address can be
treated equally.
Well, duh. This is the way the Internet was designed to work. The
Internet
Keith Moore wrote:
Too many people seem to forget that the purpose of the
Internet is to support a diverse set of applications.
Yet you are in fact the one insisting on limiting that diversity. There is a
clear flag for the apps you seem to be focused on (ie: not equal FE80 or
FEC0 or FC00),
Keith Moore wrote:
Too many people seem to forget that the purpose of the
Internet is to support a diverse set of applications.
Yet you are in fact the one insisting on limiting that diversity.
uh, no. you're the one insisting on burdening apps with
unnecessary complexity and limiting
Keith Moore wrote:
Yet you want to ban apps from recognizing the defined flags FE80,
FEC0, FC00, ...
more precisely, I want to discourage the expectation that
apps can make
do with *just* these. and if apps have more portable addresses
available to them, why should apps deal with
Keith Moore wrote:
you know, I'm really fed up with your misrepresenting my positions.
I am not trying to misrepresent them. From my perspective, they are
frequently circular and self contradictory so I am trying to sort them out.
Tony
As there appears to be some opposition to using IPv6LL for application
level connectivity in ad hoc situations, I would like to ask the WG
what is considered the best alternative and why people think that:
It's important to analyze two cases separately:
1. The case where a network is
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 6:56 , Keith Moore wrote:
Applications that perform referrals may fail, but I'm not aware of any
of these that are currently shipping and support IPv6. IPv6 is a new
beast, we don't have to be as concerned about applications making
stupid assumptions.
you have it
Keith Moore wrote:
Yet you want to ban apps from recognizing the defined flags FE80,
FEC0, FC00, ...
more precisely, I want to discourage the expectation that
apps can make
do with *just* these. and if apps have more portable addresses
available to them, why should apps deal
Keith Moore wrote:
...
but let's not try to make our task even more difficult by
insisting that apps support ambiguous addresses or addresses
with inherently limited reachability.
For one ambiguity and reachability are different concepts, and for two there
is no ambiguity required. It may
Hi Ralph,
I think I'm beginning to notice a trend in these discussions. There seem to
be strong arguements against site-local addresses, link-local addresses,
multi-addressing, and even limited-range addresses such as those
proposed in the Hinden/Haberman draft. Without any of these options,
it
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 21:39, Keith Moore wrote:
It's important to analyze two cases separately:
1. The case where a network is assembled ad hoc, i.e. with no prior
arrangement and no management
2. The case where external connectivity is down but we want the apps
to keep working
You may
Is it invalid to base assumptions on what can be observed?
Yes, if you fail to consider the limitations of your observations.
Most of the apps that exist today for IPv6 are just conversions of IPv4
apps - they are not representative of what can be done with IPv6. It's
not even appropriate to
Keith Moore wrote:
...
but let's not try to make our task even more difficult by
insisting that apps support ambiguous addresses or addresses
with inherently limited reachability.
For one ambiguity and reachability are different concepts, and for two
there is no ambiguity required.
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
However I do think it's necessary to work out these details, and to
make the changes necessary, rather than simply assuming
that one can
just use LL or just use PI or whatever.
It would be nice to see some of this happen. While the bulk
of the work is a matter
Keith Moore wrote:
... What's foolish is to assume
that everyone uses the Internet, now and in the future,
exactly like you've seen it used within your limited experience.
Yet you want to do exactly that by insisting that all apps for all time want
to view the network as a globally
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 21:39, Keith Moore wrote:
It's important to analyze two cases separately:
1. The case where a network is assembled ad hoc, i.e. with no
prior arrangement and no management
2. The case where external connectivity is down but we want the apps
to keep working
Keith Moore wrote:
... What's foolish is to assume
that everyone uses the Internet, now and in the future,
exactly like you've seen it used within your limited experience.
Yet you want to do exactly that by insisting that all apps for all
time want to view the network as a globally
Keith Moore wrote:
for LL as currently defined, ambiguity is part of the
equation. another kind of address might provide a way to
resolve that ambiguity.
There is nothing about the address type the creates ambiguity. These
addresses are not meant to be used off of the current link. That
Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an
IPv6 wg item (see below)?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
I-D ACTION:draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-01.txt
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:13 -0400
To:
IETF-Announce: ;
A New Internet-Draft is available from the
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 23:52, Keith Moore wrote:
Now I'll actually assert that - at least for hosts that have
wireless interfaces - the two cases above are distinct, and that
it's reasonable to provide different answers for those two cases -
for the simple reason that you don't
for LL as currently defined, ambiguity is part of the
equation. another kind of address might provide a way to
resolve that ambiguity.
There is nothing about the address type the creates ambiguity. These
addresses are not meant to be used off of the current link. That means not
Keith Moore wrote:
Expecting the network to be globally
accessable and flat is not reality.
the network has never been flat in reality, but part of the
purpose of IP has always been to provide the illusion of a
flat network.
That would be the purpose of the illusionary
And what about privacy then ? I agree there is a balance between privacy and features,
always, but ...
Regards,
Jordi
- Original Message -
From: Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 4:43 AM
Subject: Re:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:15:34 -0700
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Expecting the network to be globally
accessable and flat is not reality.
the network has never been flat in reality, but part of the
purpose of IP has always been to provide the
At 05:16 PM 8/21/2003, Keith Moore wrote:
I strongly disagree that this practice adds value to IPv6. IMHO it has the
potential to do a great deal of harm. It is even worse that NAT.
Worse than NAT. Coming from you that must be pretty bad.
I said that because I did a quick mental
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:35:15 -0700
Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an
IPv6 wg item (see below)?
what does it mean to do this?
if it means we generally support the requirements, I say no.
if it means we are going to try to refine
Hi Brian,
-Original Message-
From: Brian Zill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:37 AM
To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPv6 Link-Local Use Issue for Applications
Hi Jim,
I'm still not sure I understand your position?
Do not use LLs on
you know, I'm really fed up with your misrepresenting my positions.
I not speaking to Mr. Hain for awhile but I feel the same.
The fact is that the WG believes this is important discussion. Whether
Mr. Hain likes it or not.
/jim
Joshua,
Is it invalid to base assumptions on what can be observed? IPv6 has
been deployed for a while now. There are applications that support
IPv6. This applications work well with IPv6. This
applications have to
deal with IPv6LL addresses because IPv6LLs have existed for
as long as
39 matches
Mail list logo
