Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
Playing the devils advocate
Michel, can you describe, in a real world, nuts and
bolts manner, where your site boundary would be.
I have tried to address this in the GUSL draft (under co-author review,
link to be posted ASAP)
Follows is the tentative text.
Christian,
Christian Huitema wrote:
There is a sense of deja vu in all this discussion.
Indeed.
I think that one of the reasons former proposals have failed is because
there was no enforcement of non-routability in the public Internet, if
my memory is correct.
There is a need for three
Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 15:59, Michel Py wrote:
Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
I've always thought we were trying to solve this same
single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the
same thing.
GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN.
I'm not sure I
Michel Py wrote:
...
1.2.1 Free, random/hash allocation, for unattended/
automated setups.
See Paul Francis / Pekka Savola
FEC0::/11
1.2.2 Unregistered, free, unique, sequentially
allocated.
See Charlie
Mark / Brian,
Michel Py wrote:
GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN.
Mark Smith wrote
I'm not sure I see the difference.
Brian Carpenter
I agree. As longs as GUSL prefixes are unique, you can
flat route them in a foreign enterprise network. Maybe
some ad hoc static routes are
Alan,
Thanks for your comments.
The three allocation types may be broader in scope
that the _minimum_ requirements, but, to quote Mae
West: too much of a good thing can be wonderful.
Note (as mentioned earlier) that the third type is subject to scrap at
any time, including if the rest of the
Playing the devils advocate
Michel, can you describe, in a real world, nuts and bolts manner, where
your site boundary would be.
Would your site boundary positioned based on :
1) A dramatic drop in bandwidth capacity eg from typical LAN to typical
WAN bandwidth drop
or
2) geographic
There is a sense of deja vu in all this discussion -- similar proposals of making SL
more unique by somehow sticking an identifier in the 38 available bits have popped out
every 2 years on the list since 1994; I have to plead guilty, since I have indeed been
one of the proponents.
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 13:57, Michel Py wrote:
[Note: this is independent of GUPI]
GUSL
Globally Unique Site Local
Goals:
1. Provide an allocation method of site-local addresses
within FEC0::/10 in order to avoid ambiguity of such
addresses.
2. Enforce the non-routability of
Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
I've always thought we were trying to solve this same
single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the
same thing.
GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN.
It was my original intent that GUSL could solve the VPN and inter-site
connect as well, but Keith
Michel:
In response to your later request for feedback on this proposal, here are
my initial reactions:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Michel Py wrote:
Subject: GUSL proposal (very crude)
[Note: this is independent of GUPI]
Agreed. GUPI is a separate topic which requires a workable solution.
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 15:59, Michel Py wrote:
Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
I've always thought we were trying to solve this same
single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the
same thing.
GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN.
I'm not sure I see the difference.
12 matches
Mail list logo