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
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 model.
I think
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 me that
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 defaults in
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
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, we
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
combinatorial number of
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
]
Subject: Let's abolish scope [Re: Unicast scope field (was:
Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing)]
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
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
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-
valued function in the
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, because it
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 to be
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 that
15 matches
Mail list logo
