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

RE: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF

It is interesting that Erik pointed out there was not enough information
to make a decision due to lack of agreement about the requirements, yet
that was ignored and the decision was made to press on and call a
question that was not even on the agenda ...

>From the minutes, the characterizations I heard that the decision was
based on fear of NAT appears to be correct as comments about it are
liberally spread through the discussion. In particular they appear in
the summary discussion right before the question. This subterfuge only
furthers the lack of understanding about what site-local is. Local
address space is a filtering function, and exists with or without header
mangling. Filtering will exist in real network deployments, so having a
space set aside for that purpose does not change the architectural

I agree that much of the group doesn't understand the requirements of
the network managers, so I have started a draft on that subject. Granted
this is an early pass, with content based primarily on previous email,
but it does provide a basis for discussion. Comments requested:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com 
> [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:05 PM
> To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Subject: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF
> Draft IPv6 working group minutes from the San Francisco IETF 
> are attached.
> Please review and send comments.
> Thanks,
> Bob

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