Subject: RE: My conclusion re site-local clean-up

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:39:18 -0800

Fred,

>>> Fred L. Templin wrote
>>> I also recommend that a range of IP numbers be reserved
>>> for use as site-local addresses. This will prevent the
>>> rogue network administrator from picking addresses from
>>> the air.

Since that 2002:0A00::/24 and consorts are already available for that
kind of picking, I agree that it would be better to have a known range
instead of random pickings.
 
>> Are you talking about a range other than FECO::/10?

> I'd like to propose F000:/4

Wow this is big. Not to mention the difficulties of obtaining a prefix
that short, I think this size would be a good fit for global PI
addresses such as Tony Hain's proposal, but why would site-locals need
that much?

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: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:14:12 -0800

> addresses such as Tony Hain's proposal, but why would site-locals need

Michael,

I've reflected very deeply on this and yes - I really would like to see
such a short prefix set aside for other-than unicast/multicast purposes
(notice I'm not saying site-locals exclusively here). As can be told from
my earlier messages, I am keenly interested in large network operations in
disconnected and/or intermittently connected situations. When connected to
the Internet, global prefixes provide a topological frame of reference. When
disconnected, no topological reference is available, but a geographical one
is - it is called the Global Positioning System (GPS).

To be honest, I have not read Tony's global PI proposal yet, but the DARPA
mobile networking research community has been looking for ways to make
geographic routing and addressing work for years. The DARPA GloMo program
did some interesting work with georouting, and the ONR unmanned aerial
vehicle program (along with others) have been working on a flexibile
addressing scheme with geographical addressing as a core element. A limiting
factor up to now has been getting enough bits for fine-grained geographic
referenceing.

If enough bits were available, geo-referenced prefixes would provide a nice
means for supporting geographically-centered communications *with or without*
the presence of global prefixes. Examples:

  - community networks
  - find the nearest Starbucks coffee by queriyng a geo-centered network
  - have your vehicle talk to other vehicles in the nearby vicinity w/o
    needing an internet access point
  - etc.

So, I'd ask for a ::/3 or even a ::/2 if I thought there was any chance of
getting it.

Fred Templin
[email-masked]