Hi, I am quite satisfied with the coverage of the requirements for local addressing. That said, I have a few questions, and comments.
Questions --------- 1) What does the 3rd sentence in the 2nd para in section 3.4 mean? The sentence I am referring to is "Given the presence of the well-known prefix, an application that chooses to check can infer that there is an explicit....". What does the application choose to check in this case? 2) Section 3.5 mentions that absolute uniqueness is not required, but the probability of collisions should be extremely low. We should add text to make it mandatory for proposals to define following formulae: 1) Formula for probability of collision when "x" networks are merged, when "n" addresses have been chosen from the address space of "m" values. 2) Formula for probability to choose a duplicate address after "a" addresses have been chosen from the address space of "m". Presence of the formulae will allow comparing various proposals on the uniqueness front. Maybe we can also describe the values of x, a, and n (as proportions of m) in this draft. I am not sure how to do it though. 3) The requirement for conflict resolution (section 3.5) through a central registry seems to clash with section 3.1. On further thinking about it, I feel we should change the wording of section 3.1, and not make the requirement for not having public registration mechanism mandatory. I can't think of anything appropriate.... 4) I did not understand the requirement in section 3.6? My understanding is that this section refers to both - PI and non-globally routed, and PI and globally routed addresses. If this is so, can we have two subsections, and state that PI, and globally routed is a advantageous, but a "MAY" requirement, and if it is not satisfied, PI, and non-globally routed is "MUST". 5) I am not able to form the requirement stated in section 3.10. Can you rephrase? In the 2nd para of section 3.10, what policies do you imply? Where are these policies located? It also states that the policy decision moves from the edge of the originating device. Where does it move to? I guess, I am confused about the meaning of "policy". Once that is clear, I will get an answer for the other questions. 6) In the summary section, modify the line about Address to say that the "Address selection policy tables might need modifications to enable the selection limited range address space over global addresses". Actual details about the modifications should be specified in the proposals. 7) In the same section, I don't quite understand the meaning of the word "policy" in the first sentence of the 3rd para. Looking a bit closely it seems that there is overuse the word policy. The document talks of routing policy, operational policy, filtering policy, one-size-fits-all policy, policy without any qualification in front. At a minimum, all the usages of the word policy should have some qualification in front. 7) A high-level comment - Maybe we should add a section that says what information should be present in the proposals for local addresses apart from the requirements stated in Section 3. "Probability formulae" and "Effects on Address Selection" can go there. 8) The draft uses both the terms "limited range" and "local use". Can we narrow down to one term as much as possible? I prefer "limited range" Comments: --------- 1. Add a section named "MANETS", and you can put all the examples of the MANETS (section 4.3, and section 4.4) as subsections within that section. 2. Section 4.1 can be replaced by three sections - "Border filtering", "Maintaining confidentiality of the address space", and "Test networks". 3. Move some of the examples defined in section 3.5 to the scenarios, and explain them in more detail. Few on top of my head are - - "Home networks", - A scenario concerning applications that use IP addresses in the ACL or configuration can be added. Such applications include license servers that use the IP address, firewalls within the site, web site access mechanisms to allow access to only certain subnets. Since renumbering is very difficult for these cases, it is a strong case for stable IP addresses. 4. Definitions/acronyms - PI, PA, VPN, limited range 5. Move the scenario in Section 4. to a subsection (may be a subsection under the "Home Networks" section) like all the other scenarios. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Fred Templin > > Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an > IPv6 wg item (see below)? ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------