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

draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt - suggest minimise oravoid using "site"

Hi Bob, Brian,

I recently read through 




to catch up with what was happening on the topic of site locals /
unique local addresses.

It was the first time I'd read
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-03.txt. I found it to be a
good explanation of the issues that site local addresses, and
more broadly, the issues overlapping address spaces cause.

One of the criticisms it points out was the disagreement about
what the word "site" means.

I then re-read draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt. What
struck me about this draft is that it seems to quite often use
the word "site" in just as fuzzy way that
draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-03.txt criticises. 

For example, I find that the use of the word "site" in the
characteristics list part of the Introduction really starts to
imply the limitation that these addresses can only be used for
addressing geographical sites, as to me, the word "site" has a
default geographical connotation.

I'd like to suggest the use of the more generic term "address
domain" as an alternative to the use of "site" in

As "address domain" is a more generic term, I think there would
also be some value adding some text giving examples of different
sizes or types of "address domains". A geographic site would be
one example. A mobile Personal Area Network (eg. a bluetooth /
wireless enabled mobile/cell phone) could be another.

Some alternatives to "address domain" might be "address area",
"address group" or "address zone". I think each of these terms
can be used to describe a set of devices that are sharing a
common unique local address prefix, without implying any specific
range or size or number.

The bluetooth enabled phone with a camera scenario is what caused
me to think about this. I recently witnessed a photograph being
sent between two of these phones, just using bluetooth, without
any carrier or carrier addressing involved (well, I don't know
all that much about bluetooth, I'm presuming that phones have
bluetooth addresses assigned in the factory, rather than via the
carrier). Thinking about how that could be achieved using IPv6
over bluetooth (or some other wireless technology), I'd think
unique local addressing would be the solution.  Using the
word "site" in this context, when discussion unique local
addressing and mobile phone users, would seem a bit silly to me


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