On Apr 29, 2010, at 23:30, Keith Moore wrote: > > I agree that the concept of ??? (reachability boundaries?) needs a name.
On May 3, 2010, at 10:37, Fred Baker wrote: > > Maybe. I personally am not sure it needs a name. I agree that it is not a > "realm" in the sense that the term is used in IPv4. For my part, I've found it very confusing-- especially here in the context of the NAT66 list-- when the word "realm" is used to reference the mathematical concept of an address domain in IPv4, and as something else entirely different in IPv6. I only recently became aware that people were doing this, and I still don't understand why. I like Keith's proposal to use the word "enclave" to describe a network region, comprising one or more routing domains, where a distinguished subset of network addresses are only reachable between one another and not reachable from addresses outside the region. I think this concept naturally goes with the RFC 4193 concept of unique local addresses, and I wish it had been introduced there. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
