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