[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Consensus on Site-Local Discussion

> the introduction of scoped addresses into the Internet architecture 
> has caused several problems for apps which are difficult to solve .
> even if there's not consensus to do away with them entirely,
> we need to understand how to minimize the damage, and that probably
> means minimizing the use of limited-scope addresses.  So it's not
> clear to me that having the WG complete the current Scoped Address
> Architecture document is an appropriate goal.


Would it make sense to add the issues that limited-scoped addresses 
create for applications as issues to the scoped address architecture?

I think having both this, plus the implementation issues for multi-sited nodes,
listed in that document would provide useful information to the community.

Another thing that can be contemplated relates to the "zeroconf" case 
(where some implementations might end up unnecessarily using smaller scope
addresses when the "home" temporarily is disconnected) would be a
recommendation that implementations try to provide address stability using
stable storage. For instance, I think it is quite reasoanble that
implementations that have stable storage retain their addresses and expiry
times (preferred and valid) whether the addresses were acquired using RFC 2462
or DHCP. Assuming the lifetimes used are reasonable this techniques implies
that a temporary outage (less than the preferred lifetime) will
never result in the node loosing its global address even if the 
node were to reboot.
Having said that, it isn't obvious to me in which document it would make
sense to add such a recommendation. RFC2462bis? The scoped address architecture


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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com