Subject: Re: UPDATE rfc2553bis Update for IPv6 Extended address scope

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:54:14 -0500

JINMEI,

Thoughts?

If a customer does not have to duplicate their site-local addresses in
their organization with multiple sites.  Then the user does not need to
know about the site-identifier scope-id for site-local addresses.  This
is very possible for MOST cases with 2^^38 bits for differentiating a
site-local address.  In fact even if the org can do this even putting
them in the DNS is not a bad thing either as they won't be duplicated.

But even with this the mahinery you have defined is applicable to
link-local addresses as link-identifiers.  I believe we all
"think/believe" link-identifiers are unqiue across a node.  But we have
not stated that in specs I can find?  In your opinion do we need to
state somewhere in some spec that link-identifiers MUST be unique across
a node whether multisited or not?  

Also I would add if the scope part of fec0::234%site1 (being "site1") if
not specified within our API machinery then we assume it is zero which
means take the default as you stated.

But does your write up need to apply to both site and link identifiers
for clarity when used by our Basic APIs for IPv6?

thanks
/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: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:29:10 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:54:14 -0500, 
>>>>> Jim Bound <[email-masked]> said:

> them in the DNS is not a bad thing either as they won't be duplicated.

Right, since this story basically attempts to introduce (a kind of)
global uniquness into site-locals. I know this proposal of yours has
recently been discussed in the ipng list, and for now would like to
watch the discussion.

> link-local addresses as link-identifiers.

Yes, and I believe that expert users (e.g. network administrators)
sometimes have to deal with link-local addresses while novice users
even should not see link-locals, the fact which will be included in
our next draft as a background.

So I think the machinery is still vital regardless of how we deal with
site-locals.

> I believe we all
> "think/believe" link-identifiers are unqiue across a node.

Definitely yes.

> But we have

Hmm, okay, then I'll clearly state that in our next draft.
(BTW, did you actually mean "multilinked" by "multisited" in the last
line?)

> means take the default as you stated.

Agreed. That's reasonable and should be clearly stated.

> for clarity when used by our Basic APIs for IPv6?

For now I'd like to apply the enhancements to the APIs to both
site-locals as well as link-locals because

  1. currently there's no guarantee that we can define unique
     identifiers for sites.
  2. the enhancements would be able to coexist with such unique
     identifiers even if we had one.
     (Although we'd typically just ommit the scope part, e.g. "site1"
      in the above example, in this case)

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:06:37 -0500

Hi JINMEI,

>recently been discussed in the ipng list, and for now would like to

OK its not just my proposal and I have two co-authors now and we are
doing requirements definition to write up the draft indirectly now.
It will take us to May to get out a draft then the discussion will
really start.  I won't be at IETF 47 in Australia so look forward to the
email discussion.  I hope by IETF 48 we can discuss our proposal at
Pittsburgh meeting and I think we will be able too.

>our next draft as a background.

Good.

>So I think the machinery is still vital regardless of how we deal with

I agree.

>> "think/believe" link-identifiers are unqiue across a node.

I agree.

>(BTW, did you actually mean "multilinked" by "multisited" in the last

I meant both actually.  But the bottom line is that link-identifiers
should be unique across a node even though link-local addresses may be
duplicated.  

thanks
/jim

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya