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

Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

> > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
> > following document as an Proposed Standard:
> > 
> > 	Title		: Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
> > 	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, B. Haberman
> > 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-01.txt
> > 	Pages		: 15
> > 	Date		: 2003-9-24

	i object to publish this document as a standard track document.
	experimental would be more preferable.

	unique local IPv6 unicast address avoids some problems of site-local,
	but not all; there are major problem still remains.
	- it is not expected to be routable, however, it will be treated
	  as if it is a global address.  therefore it is likely to be leak out.
	  1.0 asserts that "even if it leaks out there's no conflict", but
	  "no conflict" is not enough - we do need to be 100% sure there's no
	  leak out, otherwise it is unacceptable.
	- operationally, there's a much easier way to get a block of address
	  which has the features unique local IPv6 unicast address has;
	  it is to use 6to4 address prefix (2002:v4v4:v4v4::/48).  as long as
	  you do not renumber IPv4 address and IPv6 address at the same time,
	  6to4 address will give you enough address for the suggested use of
	  unique local IPv6 unicast address.  moreover, 6to4 address are
	  routable (though there's tunnelling overhead if outsiders are to
	  contact 6to4 address accidentally).  there is no need to define
	  unique local IPv6 unicast address.

	some may object on the 2nd point, like "when I don't have IPv4 address
	what should I do?".  well, IPv6/v4 dual stack operation will continue
	for ages so i do not consider it a problem.


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6