Itojun, I see your point. But, we need to give the market away to do this or they will invent addreses. This is better than SL. Unless we believe it is ok for users to use Experimental RFC and are renumbering is strong enough that we can support a change later with implementations.
So for now I have to support this for standards track but I am listening to you seriously. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 > Unicast Addresses" > > > > > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on > advancing the > > > following document as an Proposed Standard: > > > > > > Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses > > > Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman > > > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-01.txt > > > Pages : 15 > > > Date : 2003-9-24 > > i object to publish this document as a standard track document. > experimental would be more preferable. > > unique local IPv6 unicast address avoids some problems > of site-local, > but not all; there are major problem still remains. > - it is not expected to be routable, however, it will be treated > as if it is a global address. therefore it is likely > to be leak out. > 1.0 asserts that "even if it leaks out there's no > conflict", but > "no conflict" is not enough - we do need to be 100% > sure there's no > leak out, otherwise it is unacceptable. > - operationally, there's a much easier way to get a > block of address > which has the features unique local IPv6 unicast address has; > it is to use 6to4 address prefix > (2002:v4v4:v4v4::/48). as long as > you do not renumber IPv4 address and IPv6 address at > the same time, > 6to4 address will give you enough address for the > suggested use of > unique local IPv6 unicast address. moreover, 6to4 address are > routable (though there's tunnelling overhead if > outsiders are to > contact 6to4 address accidentally). there is no need > to define > unique local IPv6 unicast address. > > some may object on the 2nd point, like "when I don't > have IPv4 address > what should I do?". well, IPv6/v4 dual stack operation > will continue > for ages so i do not consider it a problem. > > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
