Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Steven M. Bellovin
smb at research.att.com
Mon Nov 8 22:42:07 UTC 2004
In message <p06110400bdb59b451f59@[130.129.135.206]>, Ted Hardie writes:
>At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>In
>>That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
>>In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
>>the IESG.
>>
>
>
>With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends on what "not very
>different from" means. I'm currently holding a DISCUSS on this document, for
>reasons related to the ones Leo raised. In particular, I strongly
>believe that allocating
>this space:
>
> This document only allocates the prefix (FC00::/8) for centrally
> assigned local IPv6 addresses. The characteristics and technical
> allocation requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses
> will be defined in a separate document.
>
>is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got
>allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community
>support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb. I have
>some other very serious concerns about the extent to which the document
>presumes that these will be routed between ASes without recognizing
>that this means they could become the v6 swamp. So this discussion is
>*not* over, and I believe comments from operators to the WG and to
>the IESG are still very appropriate.
Thanks. Ted is quite right, of course.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
More information about the NANOG
mailing list