Tony,
Tony Hain wrote:
...
> ... It is
> incumbent on the IPv6 WG to deliver a viable PI replacement BEFORE
> removing the only PI addressing model we have.
This is where we disagree. I think we have learnt since FEC0::/10
was defined (in 1995) that ambiguous PI space is *not* viable,
as a resul
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> -When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in
|> the
|> way of solving the routing/identifier problem?
|>
|> -When (and how) did all
On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
-When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in
the
way of solving the routing/identifier problem?
-When (and how) did all the other reasons that have been advanced to
stymie
any work on the routing/iden
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>Please help me to understand something. I have been trying to get people to
|>look at the portable identifier/routing problem for _years_.
|
|Various people _have_ been looking at this problem for years. In fact,
|the IPv6 WG toyed with it for a wh
Hi Dan,
Please help me to understand something. I have been trying to get people to
look at the portable identifier/routing problem for _years_.
Various people _have_ been looking at this problem for years. In fact,
the IPv6 WG toyed with it for a while in the mid-1990s. I agree that
this is _t
Mika Liljeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> > Great. Let's work on that problem now.
|>
|> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
|> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
|> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local should go away.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 00:37 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> Great. Let's make this PI space available FIRST and THEN we can get
|> rid
|> of site-locals with little trouble.
|>
|> |Yes, aggregation can not happen,
Margaret,
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Tony, allowing an interface to have two addresses:
> - One that is globally routable and globally accessible,
> and
> - One that is stable and local,
> is _exactly_ what I am proposing.
> However, I am proposing that there is _no reason_ why
> the stabl
Tony,
So even though the routing research group has not come up with a
solution that simultaneously addresses all three of these in the last 10
years of focused work, the IPv6 WG will promise to come up with a
solution quickly if we just deprecate the only viable approach we know
of first. I guess
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> ...
> What we _really_ want is to achieve all three of the
> following things simultaneously:
>
> - All addresses are globally routable (note that this doesn't
> preclude filtering some addresses or
> address/port combos).
> - Addres
Hi Mika,
At 02:21 PM 4/5/2003 +0300, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 13:11, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local
On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 00:37 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
Great. Let's make this PI space available FIRST and THEN we can get
rid
of site-locals with little trouble.
|Yes, aggregation can not happen,
|but, so what? I claim the number of routes today is still manageable,
|and the _r
Patrick wrote:
[...]
|An application *should*always* use the hostname when communicating, and
|that imply it should not cache the IP address of the peers or itself
|between the flows are initiated which it needs. Yes, applications fail
|regarding this, and IP stacks are too bad at keeping the l
13 matches
Mail list logo
