Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Well, here's my attempt at becoming flame bait :-)
>
> I'm close to concluding that address scope is simply a bogus concept.
>
> 1. We've been arguing about it for years and have reached no
> sort of consensus. That suggests to me that there is in fact
> no consensus
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't recall that we ever promised to support scoping
> of unicast addresses.
Not explicitely, but the idea about IPv6 has been since the beginning
that it would better than IPv4 with more bits (which we could have
delivered years ago). One of these things th
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> ...
> > No, a link must be wholly contained within a site, and by
> definition
> > anything that is less than global fits wholly within global. Yes
> > multiple local regions can overlap, but that does not
> invalidate the
> > overall model.
>
> I think it does, bec
As I thought I pointed out in a message last night, IPv4 and IPv6
address spaces are different scopes. For a reasonable mainstream
deployment of IPv6 to occur, mainstream applications need to be able to
deal with a mix of IPv4-only, IPv6-only, and dual protocol nodes.
We can't just poke our heads
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:58:22 +0200,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So I don't believe that a scope field as part of the address format
> is a meaningful idea, because I don't think scope is a single-
> valued function in the first place.
(I'm just wondering) What exact
Michel,
My bottom line on this, I think, is that this version of scope
has very limited use - it doesn't deal with the situations that
my services colleagues see every day, and it is not something that
middleware can make any use of. At most, it allows for some defaults
in firewall rules and addre
JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:58:22 +0200,
> > Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > So I don't believe that a scope field as part of the address format
> > is a meaningful idea, because I don't think scope is a single-
> > value
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think we'd be better off to simply forget
> about address scope.
At last, the real question.
Well, this could be both the best thing we could do for IPv6 and the
worst thing we could do for IPv6.
It would be the best thing we could do for IPv6 because for n
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > ...
> > > No, a link must be wholly contained within a site, and by
> > definition
> > > anything that is less than global fits wholly within global. Yes
> > > multiple local regions can overlap, but that does not
> > invalidate the
> > > overall m
inline...
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Well, here's my attempt at becoming flame bait :-)
> >
> > I'm close to concluding that address scope is simply a bogus concept.
> >
> > 1. We've been arguing about it for years and have reached no
> > sort of consensus. That suggests to
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter
> My bottom line on this, I think, is that this version
> of scope has very limited use - it doesn't deal with the
> situations that my services colleagues see every day,
> and it is not something that middleware can make any use
> of. At most, it allows for some default
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I'm close to concluding that address scope is simply a bogus concept.
I find it not entirely bogus, but if it's to be part of the addressing
architecture then it needs to be handled *everywhere* that the addresses
are handled. Apps that expect to represent an IPv6 addres
Michel,
If by PI you mean *globally routeable* PI, I am not holding my breath,
and I believe it would be a serious mistake to delay any decisions
while waiting for PI.
If you mean non-globally-routeable PI, Hinden/Haberman is a fine
solution.
Brian
Michel Py wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> > Brian E
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Quite correct. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that three
> levels of scope (link, local, global) capture much of anything
> useful. If we were talking about scope between say 0 and 255,
> where 0 means link, 255 means global, and 1..254 are user
> defined,
On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> I think it does, because it makes "less than global" ambiguous.
> Does it mean "my intranet", "my intranet plus a VPN to company
> X", "a VPN to company X but not my intranet", "my VPNs to
> companies X and Y plus a secure subset of my intranet", or a
> combinatoria
Michel,
I don't recall that we ever promised to support scoping of unicast
addresses. RFC 1752 refers to the scope field in multicast addresses,
which I certainly don't propose to abolish.
I don't see why the lack of explicit scope for IPv6 unicast is an
inhibitor. Satisfying the Hain/Templin req
Brian Z,
I don't see what that has to do with our failed attempts
to design explicit scope *within* IPv6 unicast addresses.
Brian C
Brian Zill wrote:
>
> As I thought I pointed out in a message last night, IPv4 and IPv6
> address spaces are different scopes. For a reasonable mainstream
> d
17 matches
Mail list logo
