Interconnecting entities would involve these steps (pretty much
repeating what you have said above) :
1) play GUPI prefix lotto - if you loose, one of the entities will have
to renumber their network
This assumes some sort of locally-generated GUPI addresses. There is
also the possibility of
> Let's take two steps back, stop discussing possible solutions for a
> moment and discuss the problem statement. I'd like it to be possible
for
> an enterprise to:
>
> - Have resources (i.e nodes or services) that are accessible
> only to sub-groups within the enterpris
Margaret,
> - How will these addresses be allocated and/or generated?
Charlie Perkins has proposed a perfectly good way.
> - Will enterprises end up paying their ISPs to route these
> addresses globally?
They will try if there is a chance it works.
> - If so, we need an aggregable way to
Hi Margaret,
I agree it is useful to consider the problem we are trying to solve,
however, my understanding has been that we have been trying to solve the
same problem that traditional site-locals were created to solve.
I've generally understood the goals of traditional site-locals were :
1) int
On 27 Nov 2002, Mark Smith wrote:
[...]
> This doesn't seem to be a new idea, Paul Francis proposed the same thing
> in the following ietf draft (worth a read, covers a lot of what has been
> coming up in emails recently about GUPIs / (near) unique site local
> addresses) :
>
> http://www.join.uni
Pekka Savola writes:
> But this discussion is pretty much useless until we have a draft about the
> problem statement, as it affects which kind of properties are useful.
I agree with this. I'm having a *real* hard time
figuring out the set of problems that people
are claiming could be s
Mohan,
> Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> I am just trying to understand this part. From what I
> can understand, the relative stability of the GUPI
> addresses with respect to global addresses is higher.
> Is that the sole reason why you would pay an ISP to
> route these prefixes instead of getting
> Let's take two steps back, stop discussing possible solutions for a
> moment and discuss the problem statement. I'd like it to be possible for
> an enterprise to:
>
> - Have resources (i.e nodes or services) that are accessible
> only to sub-groups within the enterpris
> Mark Smith wrote:
> Are we happy with the existing problem definition, that
> (near) globally unique site local addressing is a better
> solution for than traditional site-local addressing,
I think yes, but only if we address the unreachability /
not-publicly-routable issue at the same time.
>
> The lack of global routability of site-local addresses is a
> feature, not a bug.
I don't think we have concensus on that. there seem to be at least
a few people who want PI addresses that *are* routable, or at least,
for which such restrictions are not imposed.
I'm sympathetic to the concern
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The lack of global routability of site-local addresses
>> is a feature, not a bug.
> Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't think we have concensus on that.
There is a DS in the queue, because it has reached consensus. This is
part of the IPv6 architecture. What lacks consensus is to
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> The lack of global routability of site-local addresses
> >> is a feature, not a bug.
>
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > I don't think we have concensus on that.
>
> There is a DS in the queue, because it has reached consensus. This is
> part of the IPv6 architecture. What lac
Michel Py writes:
> There is no relation. What we are trying to do here is to remove the
> ambiguity of site-local addresses, not to create globally routable PI.
> These are different topics.
This is not entirely clear. There seems to be a
fair amount of cake-and-eat-it-too going on here
when p
Keith,
> > The lack of global routability of site-local addresses is a
> feature,
> > not a bug.
>
> I don't think we have concensus on that. there seem to be at
> least a few people who want PI addresses that *are*
> routable, or at least, for which such restrictions are not imposed.
>
I
Keith,
> Keith Moore wrote:
> sorry, I thought you were using "site-local" in a broader
> sense than that which is in the these documents.
What kind of broader sense?
I am sympathetic to ambiguity being a pain in the kazoo, but it does
guarantee to some extend that SLs are not publicly routable.
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > sorry, I thought you were using "site-local" in a broader
> > sense than that which is in the these documents.
>
> What kind of broader sense?
people have been talking about globally unique site locals.
> I am sympathetic to ambiguity being a pain in the kazoo, but it
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what we are trying to accomplish
with this email discussion. From my, probably simplistic, view we are
missing a fundamental construct of IPv6 addresses. That construct is that
v6 address have some kind of scope attached to them. That scope is meant
> I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what we are trying to accomplish
> with this email discussion. From my, probably simplistic, view we are
> missing a fundamental construct of IPv6 addresses. That construct is that
> v6 address have some kind of scope attached to them. That scope is me
This is a real issue, and a real benefit of site-local addressing.
However, the ambiguity of site-local addresses causes a lot of
problems in this sort of situation. Wouldn't it be better, instead,
if people had a way to get provider-independent addresses that were
globally unique? Enter GUPI add
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Taking two steps back (Was: Re: one question...)
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:29:52 -0500
>
> > The lack of global routability of site-local addresses is a
> > feature, not a bug.
>
> I don't think we
> 2) There seems to be a need for a globally unique version of Site Local
>addresses (GUSL), so we should just define a new block for them.
>These would require registration, and perhaps a fee, just like when
>you get a domain name.
I think it's still up in the air as to whether these
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Taking two steps back (Was: Re: one question...)
> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:48:43 -0500
>
> > 2) There seems to be a need for a globally unique version of Site Local
> >addresses (GUSL), so we should ju
> From: David Borman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> IPv4 has globally routable GUPI (GRUPI) addresses. That's all it had
> in the early days. The explosion in the size of the routing tables is
> was forced changes such as CIDR and new addresses being allocated from
> ISP blocks. The only reason we sti
> Let's take two steps back, stop discussing possible solutions for a
> moment and discuss the problem statement. I'd like it to be possible for
> an enterprise to:
>
> - Have resources (i.e nodes or services) that are accessible
> only to sub-groups within the enterpri
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:34:19 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
> on multiple subsets of this problem (in different WGs) thus I think it
> would be worth-while to concentrate thinking on the identifier/locator
> separation probl
In theory yes, but the Namespace Research Group tried and failed.
Brian
Ronald van der Pol wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:34:19 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
> > on multiple subsets of this problem (in different
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:34:19 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
> on multiple subsets of this problem (in different WGs) thus I think it
> would be worth-while to concentrate thinking on the identifier/locator
> separation prob
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:34:19 +0100 (CET)
Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
] on multiple subsets of this problem (in different WGs) thus I think it
] would be worth-while to concentrate thinking on the identifier/locat
sorry about that; I replied to an ancient message. for some reason my
mail server had this one marked as unread even though it was read
a long time ago.
Keith
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:23:35 -0400
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:34:19 +0100 (CET)
] Erik Nordmark <
> Keith Moore wrote:
> Even then, there will still be cases where the right thing to do
> is to talk directly to a locator. And there will also be lots
> of apps for which a locator is "good enough" that probably
> shoudn't be made dependent on the mapping service.
Agree.
> So I lean towards a v
30 matches
Mail list logo
