[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
Itojun,
> i object to publish this document as a standard track document.
> experimental would be more preferable.
I don't agree. I think this is appropriate for standards track.
> 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.
I don't think we have to be 100% sure. Overall I think it is much better
to have a well known non-ambiguous prefix that we can have a reasonable
likely hood that it is filtered.
> - 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.
This approach doesn't work well for disconnected sites who may not have a
global IPv4 address. I suspect they would use Net 10 IPv4 addresses. This
would, of course, result in ambiguous prefixes like site-local. Something
we are trying to move away from.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------