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

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"




On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> Let me ask you this then. If the word "permanent" is not appropriate,
> what word is? To me, "not permanent" means that at some future time an
> allocation that has been made to an endsite may be revoked.

The point I'm arguing is that it is not the IETF business to decide 
this.
So not saying anything is probably the best option. Another one is
saying that the entity in charge of the allocation is required to 
provide those allocation for the long term
and not specify anything further. It is a policy decision made by the 
entity(ies) in charge
to decide what long term means.

>  But this
> begs the question of why an end site would ever want to use such
> addresses. I.e, this raises such questions as:
>
>  - under what conditions would an address be reclaimed?

to be decided by the entity(ies) managing the allocation and their 
customer by contract.

>  - who does the revokation?

the entity(ies) responsible for the allocations.

>  - what recourse does the  end site have?

See the contract between the chosen entity and the customer.
Again, this is policy, not protocol. i.e. this is not IETF business.



>
> My understanding is that the whole point of these allocations being
> "permanent" is that once and ends site gets one, it can use it without
> worry that it will have to give it up at some future time.
>
> Also, why do we need to make these allocations "non permantent"?

I'm not asking to make them non permanent in the document, but rather 
not to
specify in an IETF document that they are permanent. This is different.
If the entity in charge of the allocations decide that permanent 
allocation
is the way they want to run their business, fine.

>  Is
> there some future scenario we're worried about where it becomes
> important to be able to reclaim these addresses? I.e., are they ever
> going to become a scarce resource?

I'm worried about the scenario where IETF does policy and not protocols 
anymore.

> Also, would we ever conceive of taking back an end-site's usage of an
> address block it generated under the non-centrally allocated block?
> In particular, if your answer no, but yes for those from the centrally
> allocated block, I'd like to understand the rational behind that
> thinking.

The two are different, The self generated addresses are not guaranteed 
to be unique,
so permanent/non permanent or revocation is a meaningless discussion 
for them.

	- Alain,


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