On 2007-06-27 00:42, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, james woodyatt wrote:
<snip>
We successfully deprecated site-local unicast addressing by painting
it with the stink of IPv4 network address translation. However, we
retained the technical consensus that unreachable nodes still need to
be uniquely addressable, and what's more: these unreachable global
scope unicast addresses must be assigned from a registry with a single
global root.
My heretical opinion is that the second technical consensus is wrong.
We should deprecate the 'L' bit in the ULA address type and make all
ULA into locally allocated addresses. That way, we will have carved
off a well-known prefix (like all the other non-routable prefixes)
where nodes are neither uniquely addressable nor reachable on the
public Internet. I contend the 'L' bit was never a good idea; it was
a placeholder for those wishing to retain network address translation
in IPv6. There, I said it.
I believe that is a misunderstanding of the L bit in RFC 4193. All
it means is: this address was allocated using the procedure defined
in RFC 4193.
In every other respect it is a no-op and there is no difference between
ULAs defined with L=1 and L=0.
agree... let's go back to the original RFC defining ULA and remove that
bit and using this entire thread over the last few months as a reason
why it never should be global unique etc....
Oh, let's undeprecate site local at the same time then and recreate
the mess in its entirety. (I don't think so.)
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
