Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-16 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-13 Thread Bob Hinden
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.

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-12 Thread Bob Hinden
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-11 Thread Andrew White
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-11 Thread Keith Moore
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-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-09 Thread Alain Durand
-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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-09 Thread Tim Chown
-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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-09 Thread Bob Hinden
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:

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-09 Thread Alain Durand
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

Re: draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt

2002-12-09 Thread Mark Smith
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