Subject: playground.sun.com unreach (IPv6)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:35:45 +0900

playground.sun.com (IPv6) is unreachable.  please fix.

	it is highly annoying that IPv6 side is unreachable while IPv4 side is
	alive.  please integrate IPv4 side and IPv6 side, or terminate IPv6
	side if it cannot provide a stable service.

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:41:15 -0700

A new draft has been posted to the I-D repository; details
can be found below. Pls send comments to the list.

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

--- cut here ---

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in 
                          IPv6
	Author(s)	: F. Templin
	Filename	: draft-templin-lsareqts-00.txt
	Pages		: 9
	Date		: 2003-6-20
	
The IPv6 addressing architecture specifies global and local-use
unicast addressing schemes. Recent consensus call in the IPng working
group has deprecated site-local addressing due in part to its
inherent ambiguity. This document outlines requirements for use in
evaluating candidate proposals for a replacement scheme.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-lsareqts-00.txt

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:58:06 -0700

Please change tone. After I'll see what I can do.

    - Alain.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:05:56 +0200

Fred,

My main comment on this useful draft is that I would like to
see it combined with draft-hain-ipv6-sitelocal-01.txt. We
only need one draft on this topic.

You might add more scenarios that have to be supported

- mergers and acquistions without instant renumbering
- dynamically created VPNs in support of temporary virtual organizations
- hosting of customer subnets by a service provider

I would simply remove the language about deprecation. 

     Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:30:26 -0700

Brian,

I appreciate the comments and am in agreement with everything
you had to say. I don't think there will be time to spin a new
version ahead of the Vienna cutoff date, but will address the
comments (along with Elliot Lear's suggestion on staying
within the requirements space) soon thereafter.

Fred Templin
[email-masked]