[75182] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ted Hardie)
Mon Nov 8 16:59:48 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041108203722.275E81AE9F@berkshire.research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:59:08 -0800
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
regards,
Ted Hardie
