See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_listsearch_job_owner=0search_group_acronym=search_status_id=search_cur_state=sub_state_id=6search_filename=draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysissearch_rfcnumber=search_area_acronym=search_button=SEARCH
Erik
How about simply calling whatever we end up with organizational addresses?
I think that captures it much better than local, site local, private
or whatever.
Brian
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. To number systems/interfaces that are only
I would oppose dropping the self-generated portion. I think we have been
pretty clear about the fact that anyone expecting to use locals for long
periods of time with some chance of merging later should get the registered
kind. There is real value in the self-generated version, and I simply
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:52:46 +0100
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about simply calling whatever we end up with organizational addresses?
I think that captures it much better than local, site local, private
or whatever.
I agree. I think it is a more descriptive name.
In
At 02:55 PM 11/10/2003, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:52:46 +0100
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about simply calling whatever we end up with organizational
addresses?
I think that captures it much better than local, site local, private
or whatever.
I agree. I
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:25:14 -0800
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be inclined to go with this one, as it avoids implying a guarantee of uniqueness,
which would then imply they could be used as PI addresses from day one.
Organizational IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Regards,
Mark.
Oops, sorry, just looked at the ID again, noticed that it states they are unique.
Along those lines Unique Organizational IPv6 Unicast Addresses would be an
acceptable title.
Hmm, at least for me, I would take the word unique to guarantee no duplication. With
local generation, this isn't a
Only nit aside from a flavour of OSI is having to grep for organi[sz]ational
in drafts/RFCs.
Most use of site local may be in SOHO networks; not sure the word fits
well for home use, but if site local has stigma attached...
Tim
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:54:05PM -0500, Hans Kruse wrote:
That
How about simply calling whatever we end up with
organizational addresses?
I think that captures it much better than local, site
local, private
or whatever.
as others have pointed out these addresses will be used in
non-'organisational' scenarios. therefore i prefer 'local' as it has the
Again, thanks for the detailed comments.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:26:55 +0200 (EET),
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
substantial
1) the number of authors is too many (6). No more than 5 is allowed. I'd
suggest removing one, or putting everyone except the current document editor
as
this is a test
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:29:55 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about simply calling whatever we end up with
organizational addresses?
I think that captures it much better than local, site
local, private
or whatever.
as others have pointed out these addresses will be used in
IMHO, private is appropriate. As noted in other emails, organization
is bit too specific. Plus, Private (IPv4) addresses is a well known
concept, and it would simpler for IPv4 network (home, organization, etc
networks) operators to extend the same understanding to IPv6.
CP
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003
Hi,
Thanks for very careful and thoughful responses. This is the kind of
editing we need! :-)
Comments to remaining issues inline..
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
1) the number of authors is too many (6). No more than 5 is allowed. I'd
14 matches
Mail list logo
