Subject: RE: Status of <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt>

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:32:25 -0700

> Bob,
> 
> >
> >>Hence, I see no real reason at all to stray from FEC0::/10 - and
lots
> >>of reasons to remain in that space.
> >
> > I think you are suggesting that the draft be changed to reuse the
> > FEC0::/10 space with a resulting 38-bit global ID.  This would allow
> > for 274,877,906,944 prefixes, or 30 per person in 2050.
> >
> > My preference would be for a larger global ID, but I would like to
> > hear what other folks think.
> >
> 
> For what it is worth, I agree with kre as well.

Isn't that cool? We had this discussion before. In the spring of 1997,
as a matter of fact. And the suggestion then was:

> Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 11:25:42 -0400
> From: [email-masked] (Christian Huitema)
> Subject: (IPng 3627) Re: W.G. Last Call on "Advanced Sockets API for
IPv6"
>
> > Site-local addresses have the same problem as link-local when a
> > host has interfaces in multiple sites, e.g. interface A belongs to
> > site X and interface B belongs to site Y.
>
> In fact, site local addresses have all the problems related to non
unique
> addresses, which are well known and documented in e.g. RFC 1627.  This
may
> be late in the game, but we should really consider a way to somehow
avoid
> or minimize the problems related to that non-uniqueness.
>
> Did we ever consider inserting some site identifier, e.g. a random
value,
> in the site local prefix ?  I know that this would not make the
problem
> disappear entirely, I know that randomness leads to unhappy birthdays,
> specially when the random number is not actually random (albeit the
site
> manager could actually trow dices, it is a one time operation).  But
we
> could still go a long way...

Did we not in fact go a long way those last 8 years?

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Tim Hartrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:56:08 -0700

Christian,

> as a matter of fact. And the suggestion then was:

I think of lots of things to call it, but "cool" is not one of them.

tim

---

From: Shannon -jj Behrens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:30:18 -0700

> I think of lots of things to call it, but "cool" is not one of them.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think there's a difference.
We're no longer suggesting that the local address should have a scope
identifier associated with it, correct?

-jj

-- 
Hacker is to software engineer as 
Climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Denny's there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------