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

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"


This note summarizes the outcome of a conference call regarding your
appeal to the INT ADs of the IPv6 WG's decision to advance
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. Attendees on the call
included the INT ADs (Margaret and myself), the IPv6 chairs (Brian and
Bob) as well as yourself.

Your appeal raised two points:

Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM> writes:

> For the reasons stated above, I still believe that the wg is making
> an incorrect decision by allowing this document to progress as is
> and I maintain my appeal to our AD.

> Dear ADs, consider this mail as my second step in the appeal chain.

> Specifically, the part I object to are:

> - under the FD00::/8 prefix (Locally assigned): using the 'all zero'
> pattern instead of random bits would have the exact same effect as
> using the 'site local' address: it would create ambiguous
> addresses. The ipv6 wg spend over a year deprecating 'site local'
> addresses for that reason. It is the duty of this wg to document
> that using that particular pattern can be harmful.

There was subsequent discussion on the mailing list regarding this
point, including a post from Tim Chown suggesting specific text.  We
all agreed that Tim's text seemed reasonable and that the document (if
it didn't already) should include it (or something like it). The
authors will be asked to attempt to fit Tim's wording into the
document.  This step addresses the first point of your appeal.

> -under the FC00::/8 prefix (Centrally assigned:)
>    the document says that:
> "   The requirements for centrally assigned global ID allocations are:
>        - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner.
>        - Permanent with no periodic fees.
>        - Allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal
>          and without any procedure for de-allocation."

> I object that there is any technical requirement to mandate that the
> allocations have to be permanent.  There is a requirement to make
> those addresses stable in time, but this is very different from
> permanent allocation.

> Also, the entity managing the allocations should have the
> possibility to reclaim addresses under circumstances to be
> determined.

> But more important, the IETF should stick to protocol design and
> should not wander in economic/business model territory by mandating
> any kind of fee structure.

The general issue of permanence is an important one that should be
given serious consideration in the WG, and the ADs believe that it
would be better for all to have this matter resolved in the WG rather
than through a formal appeal. As was pointed out on the call, there
have been preliminary discussions between IESG members and the RIR
community regarding this draft and some feedback from the RIR
community will be made available to the WG shortly. The general topic
of permanance will almost certainly come up during those
discussions. Given that there will be further discussions on the topic
you have raised, withdrawing your appeal at this point would actually
facilitate the resolution of the issue in the WG.

Based on the above, my understanding is that your appeal has now been


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