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