Subject: [Tsvwg] v6 address selection

From: Kacheong Poon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:46:21 -0700 (PDT)

Could the chairs of tsvwg and sigtran tell us the status of 2960 bis?
I believe it is going to obsolete RFC 2960, right?  May I ask Randy
that he puts his rule set in another document and removes the set
from 2960 bis?  My reason being that even in ipngwg, people are
still experimenting with many issues in this area.  We should not jump
in and put a rule set in the SCTP standard spec.  We should move on with
Randy's set and experiment more at this point.  All implementors are
aware of the issue and I don't believe any implementations will make the
mistakes again.  I doubt that there will be interoperability issues.

							K. Poon.
							[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Randall Stewart at work <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 07:36:02 -0500

Kacheong:

> Could the chairs of tsvwg and sigtran tell us the status of 2960 bis?

I submitted the document friday.. (when I announced it). I would think
it will show up soon..

> I believe it is going to obsolete RFC 2960, right?  

I believe you are correct .. I even put this wording in
the introduction.. but if the wg does not wish this then I can
always take it out :-)

> May I ask Randy
> still experimenting with many issues in this area.

The work going on right now (from what I was told by Jim Bound.. still
attempting to get ahold of Steve Deering on this) is to slice up
a site-local address. This does not effect the rules that were put
in the BIS.

>  We should not jump
> Randy's set and experiment more at this point.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question... when would you
ever violate the rules validly? The rules prevent an interoperability
blackhole... 

I also would like to get Steve Deering to weigh in on this. He
unfortunatly
will be out of the office until the 23 of May :< Maybe John Loughney can
get Robert Hinden to have a look? John??

> All implementors are
Has you state above, the rules come directly from an interoperability
issue.
If they are not stated I am far more skeptical than you... I just don't
believe that "all developers" will be aware, and I will even bet
you an adult beverage that if they are NOT stated; there will be
at least one implementation that always sends Site-Locals (or worse
all of its link-locals)... which will cause a black-hole problem...

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
Systems & Solutions Engineering
Cisco Systems Inc.
[email-masked] 815-342-5222 or 815-477-2127