North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
In message <[email protected][130.129.135.206]>, Ted Hardie writes: >At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >>In >>That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt >>In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by >>the IESG. >> > > >With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends on what "not very >different from" means. I'm currently holding a DISCUSS on this document, for >reasons related to the ones Leo raised. In particular, I strongly >believe that allocating >this space: > > This document only allocates the prefix (FC00::/8) for centrally > assigned local IPv6 addresses. The characteristics and technical > allocation requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses > will be defined in a separate document. > >is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got >allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community >support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb. I have >some other very serious concerns about the extent to which the document >presumes that these will be routed between ASes without recognizing >that this means they could become the v6 swamp. So this discussion is >*not* over, and I believe comments from operators to the WG and to >the IESG are still very appropriate. Thanks. Ted is quite right, of course. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
|