> -----Original Message----- > From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dobbins, > Roland > Sent: 04 December 2013 02:48 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 > > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I question whether the benefits of numbering router interfaces from link- > local address space actually outweigh the cost. > > I'd be very interested to hear the view of the authors on how this differs in > effect from numbering IPv4 router interfaces from RFC1918 spaces, and the > operational issues which arise from doing so.
Roland, in short: We're not addressing RFC1918 in this doc. It's outside scope. > While link-local addresses are generally unique, we should consider the > experience to date in dealing with privately-addressed router interfaces on > the public Internet, and determine whether the benefits of doing > something similar with IPv6 outweigh the possible negatives. The 1918 method is different. It would be an interesting discussion to have, in another document. For the LLA approach, we were told in no uncertain terms that we should NOT make a judgement, but just list the facts to consider. That's what we tried to do. Each operator should be able to take those and make his judgement. Please let us know where we're not factual or misleading - that needs fixing. Michael > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // > <http://www.arbornetworks.com> > > Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. > > -- John Milton > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
