Subject: RE: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:24:24 -0800

Kurtis,

GUPI would not be globally routable. It would be a way to make sites
privately communicate, as neither the "limited usage" or the "moderate
usage" of site-locals provides this.

Michel.

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> I must have misunderstood something really seriously here.
> What is the difference between how we allocate PI space
> today (well, there is no swamp space in IPv6 of course)
> compared to the GUPI model? If I have got all this right
> we are suggesting to take a prefix and use it as PI space,
> right? Now this is just a matter of the number of holes
> and the size of them? As an network operator there would
> be no difference at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:58:32 +0100

> usage" of site-locals provides this.

And compared to global addresses the advantage is?

Besides not having to go to a RIR?

- kurtis -

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 07:38:39 -0500

> Besides not having to go to a RIR?

not having to have a connection to the public v6 internet in order to
get an address block, or if you are connected, having a prefix which 
is stable across changes in ISPs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:52:33 +0100

> is stable across changes in ISPs.

Having a connection or not is a policy decision. Stable addresses is an 
issue on creating PI space. There is no real need to make a block 
allocation for this.

- kurtis -

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:57:14 -0500

> issue on creating PI space. There is no real need to make a block

in my understanding of current policies there is no way for
an isolated network to get PI space.

one good reason to have a block allocation is to allow ISPs to 
filter those prefixes.

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 18:28:53 +0100

> an isolated network to get PI space.

That is true for the current policy yes - but we don't need to copy 
that to IPv6.

> one good reason to have a block allocation is to allow ISPs to
don't that take away the point with having them in the global 
routingtable in the first place?

- kurtis -