> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Trying to outline all (and have applications detect and handle) of the
> specific cases where SLs *could* be used is very difficult.
I cannot figure out where this comes from. Most applications don't
need to do anything different for SL than they are do
> > I do not advocate requiring every host and router
> implementation to have > multi-site support. I think all
> that's required for host implementations > is the default
> address selection rules, and all that's required for >
> router implementations is to have two modes (either all
>
Rich,
> I do not advocate requiring every host and router implementation to have
> multi-site support. I think all that's required for host implementations
> is the default address selection rules, and all that's required for
> router implementations is to have two modes (either all interfaces are
My view is that in the absence of strong discouragement of SL addresses
(with a few clearly valid use cases as exceptions), applications will be
expected to work well with a mixture of SL and global addresses -
even if IETF doesn't expect that. So I don't think it's sufficient to
simply say "fo
e-local addresses). This takes very little code to
implement. Anything more sophisticated should be at the discretion of
the developer.
Rich
> -Original Message-
> From: Michel Py [mailto:michel@;arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:56 AM
> T
Ipv6 folk,
I think there are some of you that need to re-read what Bob Hinden post
here ten days and several hundreds email ago.
I support Bob in the statement he made as chair and I will continue to
work within the framework outlined below.
Michel
> Bob Hinden wrote:
[Working group chair hat o
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > *of course* the government is full of it. this is news?
>
> I'm sure it's so full of it that they will be happy to remove the part
> of your salary that comes from government funds. I will make a pleasure
> to forward your opinions to the appropriate persons.
Our respo
> Keith Moore wrote:
> *of course* the government is full of it. this is news?
I'm sure it's so full of it that they will be happy to remove the part
of your salary that comes from government funds. I will make a pleasure
to forward your opinions to the appropriate persons.
Michel.
--
> Very Good. The next time there is a $50 M government contract, you can
> go see these guys and tell them their requirements are full of it.
*of course* the government is full of it. this is news?
but IETF's job is to design sound protocols and recommend sound
practices, not to do whatever so
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> This ignores the fact that many people will use site-locals
>> because addresses that are not publicly routable are a
>> requirement, and this regardless of the fact they have a
>> stable global prefix or not. Besides, stable global prefixes
>> do not exist today for end-site
> > Andrew White wrote:
> > - If a stable global prefix is available, we strongly recommend
> > using that and not using site locals.
>
> This ignores the fact that many people will use site-locals because
> addresses that are not publicly routable are a requirement, and this
> regardless of the f
Andrew,
> Andrew White wrote:
> - If a stable global prefix is available, we strongly recommend
> using that and not using site locals.
This ignores the fact that many people will use site-locals because
addresses that are not publicly routable are a requirement, and this
regardless of the fact t
> Andrew White wrote:
> My short summary:
> (a) Within a "site", a site local address works at least
> as well as a global address.
> (b) Outside a site, a site local address DOES NOT WORK.
> I'd say "MUST NOT WORK", but that is a little hard to enforce.
> (c) Given (b), the issues with site locals
Andrew,
> Andrew White wrote:
> Note that site local prefixes have no requirement for
> global administration or registration, but are likewise
> not guaranteed unique, nor expected to be routeable
> outside the site.
I disagree with the wording of this. Site-locals MUST NOT be routable
outside t
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:30:48AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > This seems like a good start.
>
> Indeed, shame it didn't come 200 emails ago ;-) It seems some concensus
> can be reached on the assumption that site locals will continue to exist,
> although many of us may be happy to not use th
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:44:36AM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Is this situation - a mobile node using site-local addresses moving to a
> new "site" - an opportunity for inadvertent (or possibly even malicious)
> TCP session hijacking? I.e., is the problem worse in the case of active
> a
At 08:39 AM 11/7/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting
> > apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to
> > a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person
> > named "mary" in whatever town he happe
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:30:48AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> This seems like a good start.
Indeed, shame it didn't come 200 emails ago ;-) It seems some concensus
can be reached on the assumption that site locals will continue to exist,
although many of us may be happy to not use them. Darwin
> > I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting
> > apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to
> > a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person
> > named "mary" in whatever town he happens to be in (if there is one),
> > or that he'll
This seems like a good start.
I think it would help to provide some advice to applications regarding
site-locals (and for that matter link-locals). e.g.
- don't use site-locals in referrals unless you have no global addresses.
- use global addresses in preference to site-locals when opening new
Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting
> apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to
> a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person
> named "mary" in whatever town he happens to be in (if there is one),
> or t
So, lets summarise again:
- In isolated and unconnected networks, site locals work fine.
- If a stable global prefix is available, we strongly recommend using that
and not using site locals.
- Site locals and global addresses can exist in parallel on the same
network, but this is likely to cause
> I apologise for the length - for the 8 line summary, skip to the bottom.
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > people made similar incorrect generalizations about NATs.
> > see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html for a
> > list of the kinds of practices/assumptions broken by NATs.
> > many
I apologise for the length - for the 8 line summary, skip to the bottom.
Keith Moore wrote:
> people made similar incorrect generalizations about NATs.
> see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html for a
> list of the kinds of practices/assumptions broken by NATs.
> many of these would
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > > Scope and Address selection:
>
> > I think it's fairly arbitrary to distinguish "internal-only" applications
> > from "applications that may include external hosts". How will the
> > application know which category it is in? What if different components
> > of the a
Keith Moore wrote:
> > Scope and Address selection:
> I think it's fairly arbitrary to distinguish "internal-only" applications
> from "applications that may include external hosts". How will the
> application know which category it is in? What if different components
> of the application have
this summary is a good start, IMHO.
one comment:
> Scope and Address selection:
>
> Address selection for hosts is a difficult issue.
>
> Destinations with only a global address (and hence probably outside the
> site) should be addressed using that address, and the source address should
> also
Bob Hinden wrote:
> 3) People who want to use site-local addresses should work on
> completing the "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture" document (and other
> docs if needed). I think a good focus for this would be to focus on
> the simplest cases. Topics to cover need to include site border
> ro
Please excuse the pun in the title, but I wanted to get your attention :-)
[Working group chair hat on]
I have been trying to make some sense of this discussion. The only obvious
conclusion is that there is not a consensus in the working group on how
site-local addresses should be used.
Some
29 matches
Mail list logo
