Subject: Re: Use of IP6.INT

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:48:39 -0500

Steve,

>I thought the proposal on the table was to move only the bitstring
>labels to .arpa, and that no one had shipped any code to do bitstrings
>yet, and that it really *would* be a trivial change to make before
>shipping any code to support bitstring-based reverse lookups.  In which
>case, no post-shipping patches would be needed to make this change.
>Is any of that incorrect?

No. But.  If ip6.int was not available as a zone to lookup nibbles it would
be.  I just sent more expounded mail to Thomas. You should see before
this response.

>And I don't know if you noticed, but the IAB has put a lot of effort into
>blocking apparent attempts by others to put phone numbers into IPv6
>addresses.  For example, see <http://www.iab.org/iab/Aug99comment.txt>.

Only by fiat as someone told me about it.  If it was sent out as a URL
for information to the community I missed that?  Was it?

But the letter says the "IETF community" this and "IETF community" that.
I don't want to get into our old battle but when did the community agree to
all this the IAB claims they do?  I happen to agree with the letter.
I will just stop there as I have very strong feelings that are not
related to this debate on the whole IAB perception on what the
"community" agreed to, and how the IAB defines community.

>By the way, a couple months ago, I got a call from someone who was very
>concerned that the IETF was making a big mistake by deciding to base IPv6
>addressing on phone numbers.  When I asked him where he got that mistaken
>impression, he said from an Internet Draft written by Jim Bound, on how
>to embed NSAP addresses (or was it E.164 addresses?) into IPv6 addresses.
>(!)

It was E.164 (unless they were concerned about the draft to support the
NSAP space slotted in RFC 2373 which should be canceled now as no one is
using it) and that draft is a use of IPv6 for old Tel systems in Europe
that could have used IPv6 initially for "profit" (oh yea I forgot you
don't like that word :--) ) immediately.  But don't worry we cannot possibly
develop the necessary security infrastructure needed to pull it off and
with other developments for IPv6 in Europe the window for opportunity is
over IMO.  Also it was brought to the IETF not to the ITU or ETSI.  Also
bringing this up in this context is like blaming me for bad things the
white man did because I am a white alpha male.  My coauthors may disagree 
with me above too.

regards,
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:25:53 -0800

At 8:48 PM -0500 1/28/00, Jim Bound wrote:
>No. But.  If ip6.int was not available as a zone to lookup nibbles it
>would be.

Yes, no one proposed moving the the nibbles out of ip6.int, or suddenly
making it unavailable.  Sorry that wasn't clearer.

>for information to the community I missed that?  Was it?

I don't remember exactly, but I think the full text was posted to the
general IETF list, as well as being installed on the IAB web pages.
I'm sure Brian will correct me if I'm wrong.

>all this the IAB claims they do?

The nomcom appoints IAB members and gives them the job of handling IETF
interactions with other standards bodies (among other responsibilities).
If you disagree with the way that works, it would be best to take it to
the POISED list.

>over IMO.  Also it was brought to the IETF not to the ITU or ETSI.

Yes, it was precisely the fact that the proposal arose in the IETF that
so alarmed the guy who called me.

>  Also bringing this up in this context is like blaming me for bad things
>the white man did because I am a white alpha male.

I wasn't trying to blame you for anything.  I thought you'd be amused to
know, and would enjoy the irony, that someone out there thinks *you* are
the one putting phone numbers into IPv6 addresses.

Steve

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:52:27 -0500

Steve,

>making it unavailable.  Sorry that wasn't clearer.

It was clear to two implementors I know and it was not clear to me and
another implementor offline.  No problem.   

>If you disagree with the way that works, it would be best to take it to

I think I need to explain.  I support the IAB doing this.  Also you can't
go to the community everytime you folks got to do your job.  The letters
you write should say the IAB this and the IAB that not the "community"
this or the "community" that.  Raise the IAB to the level of the EXPERTS
in the letter, as you say above you have the authority to tell them the
story or whatever.  Don't use the community.   If you act strong you
will be percieved strong.  So I support your job and role and trust you.
I just think you need to be more direct with them.  Also I thought the
letter to the RIRs on being to conservative was really good example of
how all the letter in your IAB job should look like.  It was direct,
correct, and polite.

Now kick the ITU and ETSI's butt :----)
[If you want a pit bull dog call me ;---)]

>so alarmed the guy who called me.

Geeez you can't win with these folks :----)

>the one putting phone numbers into IPv6 addresses.

Sorry I am having hard time lightening up these days I am taking this
Ipv6 stuff way to serious maybe.... But in hindsight it is amusing.

Oh well have a good weekend,
/jim