Alain Durand wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Alain Durand wrote:
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48
will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each
other and with the
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
One year of extremely heated discussion, appeal, gazillions
of email, just to
Alain Durand wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
One year of extremely heated discussion, appeal, gazillions
of
Alain Durand wrote:
Tim Chown wrote:
I think we will see a lot of people using fd00::/48 or fd00::/64 for
their sites/links purely becuase it's less effort to type.
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use
Zefram wrote:
Alain Durand wrote:
If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?
The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48
will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each
other and with the idiots.
If you look at
Private implies security virtues that they don't have.
Local implies geographical limitations that they don't have.
Site ditto.
Organizational implies usage limitations that they don't have.
Limited scope upsets people because of the complexity of the scope debate.
Entity really isn't different
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Does anybody have a thesaurus handy?
Non-global?
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:46:18PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Private implies security virtues that they don't have.
Local implies geographical limitations that they don't have.
Site ditto.
Organizational implies usage limitations that they don't have.
Limited scope upsets people because
Private implies security virtues that they don't have.
Local implies geographical limitations that they don't have.
Site ditto.
Organizational implies usage limitations that they don't have.
Limited scope upsets people because of the complexity of the scope
debate.
Entity really
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
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
itojun,
Tim has replied technically.
I would object to this being published as Experimental. That would be
the worst solution, since nobody would have any idea whether it was safe
to use it. I'd rather we simply started misusing PA or, indeed, 6to4
space to solve the operational problem. In
Itojun,
i object to publish this document as a standard track document.
experimental would be more preferable.
I don't agree. I think this is appropriate for standards track.
unique local IPv6 unicast address avoids some problems of site-local,
but not all; there
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename:
At 08:10 22/10/2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24 okt 2003, at 18:14, Hans Kruse wrote:
2. Several folks stumbled over the wording (in section 1.0) that
applications may treat these address[sic] like global scoped
addresses. How about:
Applications may treat these addresses like global scoped
I think that this effort is not ready for prime time.
This document is creating a explosive cocktail made of:
- policy: creation of a new authority to perform address assignment
outside of the regular channels
- economy: imposition of a fixed one time fee model, preventing
competition
On 24 okt 2003, at 18:14, Hans Kruse wrote:
2. Several folks stumbled over the wording (in section 1.0) that
applications may treat these address[sic] like global scoped
addresses. How about:
Applications may treat these addresses like global scoped addresses;
such applications will function
Exactly. Either we put this solution on the standards track,
eliminating many of the problems of both RFC 1918 and FEC0::/10,
and meeting a range of needs, or we continue searching for
the perfect solution. If we take the latter approach, we will
surely see PA space used for these needs instead,
Some notes on the draft as well as some of the comments on the list:
1. I think this draft is appropriately being prepared as Proposed
Standard. Trying to side-line local addressing to Experimental is not in
keeping with the declared consensus on work towards a replacement for
site-locals
Please send substantive comments to the ipv6 mailing list, and minor
editorial comments to the authors. This last call period will end on 5
November 2003.
I do not believe that this document is ready for Proposed Standard.
My comments (both as suggested text corrections and as more
substantive
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-01.txt
Brian Haberman wrote:
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-01.txt
That should be draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt.
Section 3.1 is still written from the point of view of having no
definitely determined format prefix, which is appropriate for discussion
but not in a
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-01.txt
I assume
32 matches
Mail list logo
