[75185] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Mon Nov 8 17:42:41 2004
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Cc: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:59:08 PST."
<p06110400bdb59b451f59@[130.129.135.206]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:42:07 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <p06110400bdb59b451f59@[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
