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

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt



Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt

Ok - that is true - this is a non-issue here at present.

[After some study of the email trails on ULA, I can't see there was resolution of the discussion of how to handle address selection when ULA and truly global addresses are available.  This might argue for moving to non-local anyway.]

Regards,
Elwyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladislav Yasevich [mailto:vladislav.yasevich@hp.com]
> Sent: 23 August 2004 19:58
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
> Cc: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]; 'ipv6@ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
>
>
> Jinmei
>
> Upon re-reading the ULA spec, I noticed that ULAs are actually
> of 'global' scope, so original wording is OK.  Since 2464bis
> applies to global scope addresses, we are set.
>
> -vlad
>
> JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> >>>>>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
> >>>>>>JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> said:
> >
> >
> >>>Yes - there are 9 instances in the body and 1 in the
> abstract and non-local
> >>>would be right for all these places I believe.
> >
> >
> >>Hmm, the changes are not small and could make the resulting
> text a bit
> >>vague, but this time I tend to agree on the change.
> >
> >
> > On the second thought, I suspect "non-local" is still
> confusing...even
> > though we are going to define the term as "an address which has a
> > larger scope than link-local," one might wonder if it includes
> > "unique local addresses" (when standardized) in the body of the
> > document.
> >
> > I can think of two alternatives:
> >
> > 1. "non-link-local addresses".  This is perhaps verbose, but the
> >    meaning will be clearer.  But one may still wonder if
> those include
> >    the unspecified address, etc.
> > 2. "large-scope addresses".  On one hand, this is perhaps more vague
> >    than "non-link-local".  But on the other, it will clearly exclude
> >    the unspecified address.
> >
> > Are either or both alternatives better?  Or can we simply use
> > "non-local"?  Or are there any other options?
> >
> >                                     JINMEI, Tatuya
> >                                     Communication Platform Lab.
> >                                     Corporate R&D Center,
> Toshiba Corp.
> >                                     jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Vladislav Yasevich            Linux and Open Source Lab
> Hewlett Packard               Tel: (603) 884-1079
> Nashua, NH 03062              ZKO3-3/T07
>

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