On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 09:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Steven Blake wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 03:41, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> > > As I already said under another subject line,
> > > what I understood we were deprecating is SL as defined
> > > in the current address architecture, i.e. FEC0::/10.
> > 
> > Do you mean the e-mail where you said the following?
> > 
> > --> I prefer to think about this the other way round: kill the ambiguous
> > --> space, which we have learnt the hard way is a mistake, and then
> > --> design the alternative, which may well be unrouteable GUPI (and for
> > --> all I care, starts with FEC::/10).
> 
> yes
> 
> > 
> > > That's the only formal definition of SL, so I don't see
> > > what else we could be referring to.
> > 
> > Well, I'm still confused.
> 
> what do you think we are possibly deprecating, if it isn't the
> current definition?

There have been several proposals to turn addresses in fec0::/10 into
GUPIs or PUPIs (Probabilistically Unique PIs), similar to your note
above).  Since I wasn't in SF, I wanted to make sure that we weren't
being asked to preclude those as well.

For whatever it is worth, I think that ambiguous addresses are a
disaster, but nothing is going to prevent those that want RFC 1918-style
addresses from inventing them.  It is better to have a well-defined
prefix for this, rather than risk the chaos of people creating them out
of the global space.

I would be happy to see fec0::/11 set aside for private/experimental
(including PUPIs), and fee0::/11 set aside for GUPIs.  Any notion of
site ID should be ripped out of all the specs.


Regards,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven L. Blake               <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ericsson IP Infrastructure                +1 919-472-9913

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to