4.2. Wrong Way to Influence Registry Policy
It has been argued that it is inappropriate and/or ineffective for
the IETF to attempt to influence address registration policies
through the publication of an RFC that creates a new address space
with defined registration policies.
That
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 12 nov 2007, at 15:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
If that happens (RIRs not having policies for using ULA), then IETF
can ask IANA to create a new registry for that, and IANA need to
do it, no choice against that IETF decision.
I object to the assumption th
All,
The current agenda is available on-line at:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/6man.txt
Regards,
Brian
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
The 6man WG has a meeting slot during IETF 70 in Vancouver. The
chairs are beginning to pull together the meeting agenda. If you have a
FYI -- A new version of my ULA-C Analysis draft, updated based on
recent discussions.
Margaret
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 20, 2007 12:26:44 PM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mrw-6man-ulac
"man ping6"?
-I interface address
Set source address to specified interface address. Argument may
be numeric IP address or name of device. When pinging IPv6 link-
local address this option is required.
That's a capital "i", fwiw. YMMV.
On 11/20/
On 20 nov 2007, at 13:04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now the DNS must know about routing?
Why would the DNS need to know anything about routing?
ULA addressing is intended for local use.
Right, so the DNS needs to know what's local and what isn't. (Since my
own serve
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> On 13 nov 2007, at 13:46, James Carlson wrote:
> works. (Such as the shim6 REAP protocol is designed to do although
> REAP doesn't know about routes.) So it should clearly be possible to
> send packets that don't conform to the source address / route
> alignment
> > Now you might want to configure your DNS proxy (resursive
> server) to
> > not pass through records with ULA addresses unless
> they are from
> > known sources with whom you have a prior arrangement.
> > But that is a different issue.
>
> Now the DNS must know about routing?
Why woul
On 20 nov 2007, at 12:41, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now you might want to configure your DNS proxy (resursive server)
to not pass through records with ULA addresses unless they
are from known sources with whom you have a prior arrangement.
But that is a different issu
> In practice, what are you going to do when you do a DNS
> lookup for some random domain name and you get a ULA address?
> Ignore it because you know it's unreachable? Try to send a
> packet anyway?
You have to send a packet because that is the only way to
discover if it is reachable or not.
> This sounds like "provider independent" which is a very
> different ballgame.
>
> The point of ULAs is not that they are independent of any
> particular provider, they're independent of any and all
> connectivity to the internet at large.
I agree that a ULA-C RFC must state that these addre
On 13 nov 2007, at 2:36, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think that Geoff Huston has made the same (or a similar) argument
when he has indicated that it is architecturally unsound to
associate routing properties with a specific address block. There is
no inherent guarantee that any registry-ass
On 12 nov 2007, at 15:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
If that happens (RIRs not having policies for using ULA), then IETF
can ask
IANA to create a new registry for that, and IANA need to do it, no
choice
against that IETF decision.
I object to the assumption that ULAs would be subject to R
On 12 nov 2007, at 4:46, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
direction) that I've missed.
Not sure how
On 13 nov 2007, at 13:46, James Carlson wrote:
Matter of fact, it seems to address something that also occurs with
IPv4, with multihomed hosts. And that apparently, some OSs screw up
royally.
I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact,
doing what their users *tell* t
The interface of my linux machine show three addresses
1. Static IPv6 address
2. Statless autoconfigured IPv6 address (using RA)
3. Link local address
when i initiate a ping from this machine static address is selected as
the source for the ping command
is there a way to change source address used
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:28 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-11-12 22:15, Per Heldal wrote:
> > Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
> > the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why such an
> > address-block must be tagged 'special'.
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
