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

Re: Status of <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Robert Elz wrote:
>   | Yes, applications should of course be *able* to influence these, if they 
>   | desire so, provided that:
>   |  - they don't need to if they don't want to (including multi-party apps)
> I doubt that the latter (parenthetical requirement) is possible.

Hence why the ordering could be reversed: no modifications necessary for 
working-by-default-for-the-first-try configuration.
>   | This also begs the question whether local-scoped addresses would be
>   | deployed without global addresses or not (as some have required).
> Pekka, there's no way to stop it.   Regardless of what address forms
> are created, or not created, this is going to happen, however dumb we
> see it as being.   What we need to do is minimise the harm, we cannot
> prevent it.

I didn't say this would be a bad thing, but we should figure out whether 
folks want to do "local only" or "local + global" deployments (and their 

The reality affects subsequent decisions, of course, but this should be 
taken into account.
>   | If there are local-only nodes, the reason to deploy local-scoped addresses
>   | could be simply to use them when needed, no more no less -- without 
>   | disturbing the global communication of nodes with global addresses!
> There are also those who will always prefer to use local addresses over
> global, regardless of what is available.   I'd have global addresses
> available everywhere, and use them only when that's the only thing that
> works (when routing cannot get other addresses to work).

True.. in certain deployments, this has some merits.

What I'd like is to look at the problem from all the angles and document 
the tradeoffs and implications of both ways and see from there: not just 
assume that "local = smaller scope" is automatically better.
> None of us can impose our model of how any of this should work on the
> world at large - we have to be able to cope with different methods of
> building networks.  

That includes of course imposing the requirement how you want to build the 
network on other people ;-)

> Bob, in the next version of your draft, could you include some mention of
> how this change (from FEC0::/10 to FC00::/7) is planned to affect Node
> Information Queries (from Matt Crawford's draft) ?

You mean that NIQ should be amended to allow queries from that space and 
forget about the TTL=255 security hack?

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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