On 2007-06-11 19:45, james woodyatt wrote:
...
I don't see why residential users should even need ULA, much centrally
assigned ULA.
Assuming you mean the vast majority of residential users I agree. But there
will always be exceptions, and there will be a soft boundary between small
offices
Not that it really matters, since ULAs never appear off-site anyway.
depending on what you mean by a site, both in relative and absolute terms
of space and of time, there might be general agreement on this point, or not.
hopefully the regress isn't infinite. care to take it a step and see?
On 2007-06-12 09:27, Paul Vixie wrote:
Not that it really matters, since ULAs never appear off-site anyway.
depending on what you mean by a site, both in relative and absolute terms
of space and of time, there might be general agreement on this point, or not.
hopefully the regress isn't
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:28:07 +0200
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that what you describe is a prime candidate
for metro addressing, not for ULAs of any kind. And a metro
prefix is not really any different from a PA prefix, except
that it's assigned to a municipality.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:27:08 +
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that it really matters, since ULAs never appear off-site anyway.
depending on what you mean by a site, both in relative and absolute terms
of space and of time, there might be general agreement on this point, or not.
I think a better way of describing it is administrative domain. A
home and the devices in it are an administrative domain - the person who
bought or looks after the devices has to administer, or at least take
ownership of the administration of those devices. That ownership could
be as
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:35:36 -0700
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a better way of describing it is administrative domain. A
home and the devices in it are an administrative domain - the person who
bought or looks after the devices has to administer, or at least take
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:11:19PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:35:36 -0700
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a better way of describing it is administrative domain. A
home and the devices in it are an administrative domain - the person who
bought or
I think a better way of describing it is administrative domain. ...
in addition to bmanning's worthy comments, let me say that this redescription
entirely removes the point of my question. the assertion i first quoted was:
Not that it really matters, since ULAs never appear off-site anyway.
Paul,
My understanding is that when two sites agree to form a
peering arrangement and are joined, e.g., by a VPN link,
then they should be able to advertise their ULA-C's for
use within the scope of their now-linked sites. So, it's
not about a site freely redistributing its ULA routes
into any
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
if we're going to expect routability to provide connectivity
in some cases
but not all, which is what's implied by saying never appear
off-site, then
we need to know what cases and exactly what noncases. so
what's
in response to this prompt:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we're going to expect routability to provide connectivity in some cases
but not all, which is what's implied by saying never appear off-site,
then we need to know what cases and exactly what noncases. so what's a
site?
On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
if i seem anxious to cut to the chase it's because i've read
all this before when site local was first proposed and then
later, again,
when it was deprecated. so let's keep our feet on the ground and
define
our terms and make sure we
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
site-local was deprecated because nobody could agree what a
site was, which
in other words means it's down under the same swamp we are
now waist deep in.
Okay, I'll gladly agree on both points.
so my previous
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
[..]
If we get more restrictive about ULA-Cs, my bet is that something else
will morph to take their place (and the place of site-local addresses).
I guess people just like to have this tool.
The ULA-C tool already exists: IPv6 PI space from the RIRs.
That satisfies
-Original Message-
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My not-well-articulated point was: if everyone seems to have made RFC
1918 work quite well, why do we need to get overly precise in
this time around?
I happen to work for a network that has to deal on a very
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
snip
Is this a little like the RH0 thread? When it was a choice of disabling
by default or removing entirely? My vote is, don't forward ULA-Cs by
default, but let us use them as we used RFC 1918. It was also my vote
when we were discussing
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
snip
Site local were deprecated because they were re-creating overlapping
address space a la RFC1918. This was considered a bad property
for multi-party applications that couldn't tell if they could
forward them as reference or not.
Some people believed
-Original Message-
From: Roger Jorgensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are we even talking about ULA-C now? What you want is
nicely covered
by ULA... not ULA-C but regular plain stright forward ULA.
Largely, but not completely. Think in terms of large platforms that have
several
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
My not-well-articulated point was: if everyone seems to have made RFC
1918 work quite well, why do we need to get overly precise in
this time around?
I happen to work for a network that has to deal on a very regular basis
with the nightmare of
Paul,
so far, there've been two answers, coincidentally both from
boeing.com.
Please do not read too much into this. I respect the other
poster's opinions but, as for multiple posters from other
organizations, we are both bringing our own individual
opinions to this that do not necessarily
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Roger Jorgensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are we even talking about ULA-C now? What you want is
nicely covered
by ULA... not ULA-C but regular plain stright forward ULA.
Largely, but not completely. Think in
I work on a quite similar network and we have the same issues. And I've
concluded that ULA-C would work great at our place, IF, please note that
BIG IF there, if we get reverse DNS. Without that, it is useless for us and
we might just aswell go with regular PA address-space.
so is it the case
so is it the case that the long-dead proposal to add an icmp
message type
for tell me your hostname would be quite useful in this application?
RFC4620?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
I work on a quite similar network and we have the same issues. And I've
concluded that ULA-C would work great at our place, IF, please note that
BIG IF there, if we get reverse DNS. Without that, it is useless for us and
we might just aswell go with regular
... My $.02 or so, inline ...
-Original Message-
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 14:58
To: Paul Vixie; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL
...
-Original Message-
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 16:29
To: Roger Jorgensen
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
-Original Message-
From: Roger Jorgensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:59:11 -0700
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:11:19PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:35:36 -0700
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a better way of describing it is administrative domain. A
home
so my previous question stands. what's a site?
Paraphrasing from the 'draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp' definition
for Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET):
site
a connected network region that comprises routers that
maintain a routing structure among themselves. A site
may be as
... It is meant to be a private address space, to be routed / routable as
private address space should be - specifically NOT on the public internet.
what we mean it to be routed to is less important than what people who use it
will actually route it to. let's focus for now on examples
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:36:42 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
site-local was deprecated because nobody could agree what a
site was, which
in other words means it's down under the same swamp we are
Doesn't RFC 4193 already define site in a way that is clear for ULAs:
3.3. Scope Definition
By default, the scope of these addresses is global. That is, they
are not limited by ambiguity like the site-local addresses defined in
[ADDARCH]. Rather, these prefixes are globally unique,
Does anyone have an answer to this? Site local were deprecated because
the consensus was that there's no need for private addresses in
IPv6.
Are these ULA-Cs simply taking their place?
No, that's not correct. It had more do with their non-unique
properties and the notion of a unicast
33 matches
Mail list logo
