I vote for C, you can't ask people who are up and running with something
today to just stop with out a plan on replacing it. Otherwise FEC0:: will
stay a de facto private range as we will have implementations using it and
ones that are not.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL P
From: "Michael Thomas writes:
> If you truly want to deprecate FECO::/10, I'd say
> that it shouldn't be reserved to IANA, but given
> to registries with explicit mandate to allocate
> it immediately.
This could cause problems with hardware that already is installed, and is
configured to treat F
As we are all looking at what to do with site locals, has anyone any text on
what happens to the old RFC 1918 addresses?
>From what I have seen the 0::10:x:x:x is still going to need to be treated
as site local (private) as in a 6to4 enfironment we still need to maintain
the old rules (at least un
As we still have not provided a replacement for the FEC0:: addresses I would
be hesitant to start trying to make rules about what is allowed and not
allowed until a replacement is defined.
As it is the WG is spending a lot of time debating items that make a lot of
sense rather than offering reason
In the past 3 days I have received several versions of this virus.
Please check your systems.
In all cases there is an attachment called "your_details.zi"
Here are 2 of the originators:
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1
Eric Klein - No we should not deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing
- Original Message -
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing
>
> Hi All,
>
> At
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Well, I'd hoped to avoid that question until we had mailing list consensus
> on deprecating SLs.
>
I would tend to say that we are a long way from consensus about SL's.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailin
> EricLKlein wrote:
> ...
> > Our final decision
> > was that we can not convert our database to pure IPv6 and let the
hardware
> > translate for us, so we will have to do it in the appliaction.
>
> Of course. Full dual stack support is the only rational starting poin
> >> People didn't see the need for RFC1918 space in IPv6.
>
> Because of site-locals. With site-locals gone it is an entirely new
ballgame. There is a need for private addresses,
> people will use them no matter if they are site-locals, 6to4 addresses
with a v4 RFC1918 address or plain hijack
> of
> I suspect you are underestimating the difficulty of renumbering and
> overestimating the level of clue of people asked to do the renumbering.
>
I suspect the list is underestimating the resistance to change that 1000's
LAN / WAN people will have to changing both their network and their way of
th
> If the ISP doesn't provide /48's to an endsite, other ISP's
> will have the advantage that they do. Also if the ISP doesn't
> they are going against RFC's.
>
> You might also realize that the current TLA policy for RIR's
> demands that you have 200 prospect clients. That is 200x /48.
> Aka 200 en
>> Say that both networks were using the FE8::: network,
>> then one of them could change this to FE9::: prior to the merge,
>> and then just link them.
>>
>> Should be a piece of cake. An alternative would be simply to
>> go from both being FE8::: to one being FE8:1:::x
>> Or to ask it a different way, (and maybe this is the
>> solution) will all of the 10.x.x.x (and the other IPv4
>> private addresses) suddenly become globally broadcast?
>Please define 'global broadcast'
Think of it as if they were now suddenly 1::10:x:x:x, valid on the public
internet, and "r
All,
I personally don't mind soo much when I am corrected publically in the list.
But I do dislike it when I get multiple copies of the replies to me or to
others. (In one case I got 4 copies of a single reply)
Please only reply to the list, not to the message originator.
Thanks,
Eric
> Site-locals are useful, but the cost is too high. The additional
> complexity that site locals add to nearly every part of the Internet -
> in apps, DNS, routing, and elsewhere - simply isn't worth the benefit.
How high is the cost of setting a standard that says the following 4
prefixes are no
> As long as we are clear that, the "site-local" does not get special
> treatment in terms of routing and dns, we should care less about if
> "site-local" is deprecated or still lived. It's perfectly fine and
> actually somewhat useful if "site-local" plays the same role as in
> IPv4 addresses defi
> I don't like taking into account money in technical matters.
>
Welcome to the eral world, not the lab or academic world.
>
> BTW: let me note that I know of a certain hospital with a /16 IPv4
> and all their heartmonitoring and other surveilance apparatus
> are using IP's out of that /16. With on
> I can't really see the motivations to do NAT under v6 when it's so easy
> to have multiple addresses on an interface anyway. Joining 2 networks
> which use the same address site-local addresses would be nowhere near
> as painfull as before since it's that much easier to re-number one of
> them u
> > Done this way we will be defingin IPv7 real quick, as the unused
> > addresses
> > will add up very fast.
>
> There are a _lot_ of IPv6 routing prefixes, namely 281,474,976,710,656
> (assuming every allocation is a /48 as is the current plan (last I
> heard)). Right now, there are about 120K r
> >> IP's should be globably unique. Which will overcome many problems
> >> like network mergers ('oh we need to NAT now'), e2e problems etc.
> > The new address features of IPv6 should resolve this as easily as
> > changing
> > providers.
>
> What features are those?
Autoconfiguration - IPV6 all
I could be wrong here (and apparently it would not be the first time on this
topic today) but it appears to me that:
The people who are in favor of local addresses are thinking hardware
implementation.
and
The ones against are thinking application functionality.
Is there anyone that would be
A company like IBM is big enough to have their own global
infrastructure and can also get a TLA as they are an ISP
for theirselves most probably. Same goes for companies like
Microsoft, Apple or non-computer related: Shell for instance.
True, but they will want to keep the private network hardware
;Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: A use for site local addresses?
> >
> >> And it should be quite possible for anybody to
> IP's should be globably unique. Which will overcome many problems
> like network mergers ('oh we need to NAT now'), e2e problems etc.
The new address features of IPv6 should resolve this as easily as changing
providers.
> And it should be quite possible for anybody to use one /64 out of
> their
- Original Message -
From: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: A use for site local addresses?
> >> If you absolutely
- Original Message -
Leif Johansson wrote:> Let's please
remember that the architechture devised here will primarily > be used
to> run _applications_. Long experience shows that private addresses in
any > form are a> bad idea on the Internet. This was discussed at
length on the v6
> The same people are also trying to understand why a number of
> applications doesn't work in their network and how come that trojan
> send their password file to a unknown destination. Private addresses
> comes at a cost that is becoming more and more apparent. No need to pay
> that price in IPv6
issue.
Eric Klein
NGN Solutions Manager
TTI Team Telecom International
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Chown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: A use for site local addresses?
> Re
This could be covered under the prefix
FEC0.
This
is
the prefix of a site local address. Site local addresses are the equivalent of a
private IPv4 address.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Saywell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:05 PM
Thank you. I have been reading:
RFC 2452 IP v6 MIB for
the TCP
RFC 2454 IP v6 MIB for
the UDP
RFC
2466 MIB for IP v6 ICMP
But
didn't see anything more detailed. Thanks for the information.
Eric
- Original Message -
From:
Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)
To: EricLKlein ; [
I appologize, this is being possted to multiple
WG's as it seems to cross areas.
Is there any information about the requirment
changes in the Network Management Systems (NMS) or Operations
Support Systems (OSS) necesary to support IPv6?
I have looked at the various MIB RFC's and such, but
ere but
> ship as-is if nothing new is on the horizon.
I am sorry but I seem to have gotten my messages mixed.
Eric
- Original Message -
From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursda
I tend to agree with the previsous comment that people will take this
example as law and will make it a defacto standard boarder even if we only
intened to make it a sample based on one groups implementation. I would
suggest that it read somthing to the effect of:
An example of the resulting forma
33 matches
Mail list logo
