With IPv8, "site" is defined by the left-most 64-bits of the 128-bit IPv6
address.
Those bits are assumed to be a "SITE-ID". The easiest way to obtain a
site-id for
FREE (without paying ICANN/IETF taxes), is to use a 32-bit IPv4 address.
Microsoft supports this with the 2002:<IPv4>:0000 format, in time for the
2002 expansion of the IPv8 network, via Windows 2000 (or is it 2002 ?).
The right-most 64-bits are the persistent address. They are used to number
the
hosts/nodes/processes within the site. The SITE-ID can change, depending on
routing conditions on the IPv4 transport. The right-most 64-bits change less
often
because those are managed by the local administrator. In order to prevent
collisions
in the "management" of the right-most bits, all of the major TLD Communities
have
been allocated blocks (tax FREE) to manage**. IN-ADDR.[TLD] is used in place
of IN-ADDR.ARPA.
Using the right-most 64-bits for a managed persistent address, routes around
the IPv6 "Privacy Problem".
http://www.internetwk.com/columns/frezz100499.htm
Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
**http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Steve Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Francis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: what is a site???
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Elz writes:
> > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:08:43 -0800
> > From: Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Message-ID: <v04220802b6e1c6d1bdbb@[10.83.97.214]>
> >
> > | I have a hunch that you, and probably many others, will still find
this
> > | description less than satisfying, preferring a simple, concrete rule
for
> > | defining a site, but perhaps you can at least get a glimmer of the
> > | general notion that has been mostly buried in my mind and
inadequately
> > | documented so far.
> >
> >I find it less than satisfying, but not for that reason, in fact, for
> >exactly the opposite reason, that definition is far too precise.
> >
> >A site should be whatever I want it to be. About the only requirement
> >should be that it is internally connected (somehow, including using
tunnels).
> >
> >No more than that is needed - it is just a collection of nodes that the
> >administrator defines are a site, and then configures the routers at the
> >borders of the collection of nodes to mark them as site boundary routers.
>
> Yah. I tend to equate "site" with "AS".
>
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
