below...
Bob Hinden wrote:
Keith,
operationally I think it would be a mess to have site-locals routed
differently within a site than globals. it's not that you can't do it,
it's that it makes life more difficult, and GUPIs seem to be a better
way to solve the same problem.
I am not
Keith,
operationally I think it would be a mess to have site-locals routed
differently within a site than globals. it's not that you can't do it,
it's that it makes life more difficult, and GUPIs seem to be a better
way to solve the same problem.
I am not sure there is that much difference.
Mark,
At 05:54 PM 12/9/2002, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Bob,
A few thoughts / questions / comments on your draft :
3.0 Proposal 3.1 Global Token
* 8 bit areas
I'm curious as to why you chose to allocate 8 bits for the area.
Allocating 6 bits for area would allow aggregation to take place on the
Keith Moore wrote:
I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of
allocation.
renumbering is a lot more painful if you're trying to renumber
between prefixes of different lengths.
Exactly. And we agreed a long time ago on /48 as the normal
(but not architecturally
For the record, I am still completely against any proposal
that takes over the normal 16 bit subnet field, i.e.
generates a prefix longer than /48. It just isn't
operationally convenient.
Brian
IETF IPng Working Group
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For the record, I am still completely against any proposal
that takes over the normal 16 bit subnet field, i.e.
generates a prefix longer than /48. It just isn't
operationally convenient.
I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of
I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of
allocation.
renumbering is a lot more painful if you're trying to renumber
between prefixes of different lengths.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng
-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : IPv6 Globally Unique Site-Local Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden
Filename : draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2002-12-6
This internet draft describes a proposal for IPv6 Globally Unique
Site-Local
-global-site-local-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2002-12-6
This internet draft describes a proposal for IPv6 Globally Unique
Site-Local Addresses.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http
Alain,
At 02:10 PM 12/9/2002, Alain Durand wrote:
This proposal is making the assumption that MAC addreses are somehow stable.
I think this is a bad idea.
MAC addresses are stable. What may not be stable is their life in on an
interface in a specific machine. The words in the draft are:
Bob Hinden wrote:
3.2 Assignment
The globally unique site-local prefixes defined in this document are
intended to be manually assigned to router interfaces in a site. The
global token used in each prefix would be created from an EUI-48
address found in an interface on the subnet.
There is no
Hi Bob,
A few thoughts / questions / comments on your draft :
3.0 Proposal 3.1 Global Token
* 8 bit areas
I'm curious as to why you chose to allocate 8 bits for the area.
Allocating 6 bits for area would allow aggregation to take place on the
/16 bit boundary. I think this would make it a
12 matches
Mail list logo