Subject: RE: draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:24:44 -0700

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> And the fact is that enterprise network managers are
> very happy to have a class of addresses that cannot be
> globally routed and are filtered by default as bogons
> by all ISPs.

You forget that the very reason RFC1918 addresses are filtered as bogons
is precisely because they are ambiguous.

> So they just love RFC 1918 addresses for that, and
> hate them for their ambiguity (since that creates a
> mess when they have to be routed anyway, e.g. on VPNs).
> The main point of this draft, as far as I'm concerned,
> is to convey this requirement, which isn't met either
> by PA prefixes or the old SL prefix.

The requirement was met fine by the SL prefix; the only reason they
still are ambiguous is because both Bob and I put our drafts to remove
ambiguity from SLs on the back burner due to the deprecation situation.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:13:42 +0200

> is precisely because they are ambiguous.

Well, with RFC 1918 there is no way to disentangle the notion of
"private" from the notion of "ambiguous". So I don't think this
is relevant.

> ambiguity from SLs on the back burner due to the deprecation situation.

Sure, at one level it doesn't matter whether the limited addresses
are FEC0:xxxx::/48 or as proposed in draft-hinden. I think it's
better for existing code to leave FEC0::/10 reserved and deprecated,
but that's a secondary argument.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:02:11 -0700

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> ...
> Sure, at one level it doesn't matter whether the limited 
> addresses are FEC0:xxxx::/48 or as proposed in draft-hinden. 
> I think it's better for existing code to leave FEC0::/10 
> reserved and deprecated, but that's a secondary argument.

From a software perspective the prefix doesn't matter. At some point the WG
is going to have to decide if the costs (including the time delay) for
changing any hardware that recognizes FEC0::/10 outweighs the perceived
advantages of a 'clean' prefix, or not.

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:24:09 +0200

> advantages of a 'clean' prefix, or not.

Please read carefully the exact text of the "deprecation" section
of the deprecation draft, which is coming very shortly (as requested
in Vienna). I think its phrasing addresses this point.

  Brian