<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras)
Jim,
please keep in mind that this is a forum for DNSO work,
decidedly *not* a place to post registrar recommendations
and *not* a place for extensive discussion of the
address space (to discuss this, go to aso-policy@aso.icann.org).
Please to be warned that off-topic postings are violating
the list rules and can lead to a suspension of posting
rights.
Regards,
/// GA List Monitor
At 09.08.2002 17:34, Jim Fleming wrote:
>Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ?
>
>Jim Fleming
>2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>
>To: "IPv6 List" <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:27 PM
>Subject: Changes to IPv6 Addressing Architecture Draft
>
>
>>
>> At the IPv6 working group sessions at the Yokohama IETF two changes to the
>> IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture draft
>>
>> <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-08.txt>
>>
>> were discussed. These changes were proposed based on feedback received
>> from our area director and email discussion on the mailing list. A summary
>> of the AD comments is include at the end of the email.
>>
>> The changes that were proposed at the meeting were to relax the interface
>> identifier uniqueness requirements (from the link to subnet prefix) and to
>> change the definition of Site-Local addresses to make the subnet field
>> 54-bits (and eliminate the 38-bit zero field).
>>
>> After discussing the proposed changes, a consensus was reached at the
>> Yokohama meeting to make them. The purpose of this email is to validate
>> that consensus on the mailing list and to review the specific changes to
>> the internet draft.
>>
>> The proposed changes (changed lines marked by "|") to the ID are as follows:
>>
>> Change to second sentence in the first paragraph of section 2.5.1:
>>
>> Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify
>> interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet |
>> prefix. They may also be unique over a broader scope. In some cases |
>> an interface's identifier will be derived directly from that
>> interface's link-layer address. The same interface identifier may be
>> used on multiple interfaces on a single node, as long as they are
>> attached to different links.
>>
>> and from section 2.5.6 where site-local is defined:
>>
>> Site-Local addresses have the following format:
>>
>> | 10 |
>> | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits |
>> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>> |1111111011| subnet ID | interface ID | |
>> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>>
>> Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of
>> a site without the need for a global prefix. Although a subnet ID may |
>> be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that most globally-connected |
>> sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global prefixes. |
>>
>>
>> If there is agreement with these changes I will submit a new draft (-09)
>> that the area directors can proceed with.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Comments from Thomas Narten:
>>
>> >1) The -07 ID contains the wording:
>> >
>> > > Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify
>> > > interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique on that link.
>> >
>> >Given the on-going issues surrounding DAD vs DIID, I felt it
>> >appropriate to check with the WG whether this wording was indeed what
>> >the WG believed the architecture should require.
>> >
>> >2) The -07 ID contains the wording:
>> >
>> > > Site-Local addresses have the following format:
>> > >
>> > > | 10 |
>> > > | bits | 38 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits |
>> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
>> > > |1111111011| 0 | subnet ID | interface ID |
>> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
>> >
>> >Given that the fixed 16-bit subnet ID in global addresses was changed
>> >to one having a flexible boundary, the subnet ID in site-locals should
>> >also not have a fixed boundary. Note that other parts of the document
>> >showing addresses were updated to use generic "m" bits, rather than
>> >fixing the field at 16 bits, under the concern that implementations
>> >*might* somehow hardcode the boundary in their implementations.
>> >
>> >Also, it might be good to clarify that the middle bits are undefined
>> >and should be 0. I.e., implementors could interpret the above words as
>> >saying the bits are defined to always be zero (as opposed to just
>> >reserved for future use and MUST be zero), which could lead
>> >implementations to somehow check that those bits are 0, and if not, do
>> >something incorrect (like signal an error).
>> >
>> >The specific text that was proposed and discussed at the Yokohama
>> >meeting addresses the main concern I had.
>> >
>> >At the meeting, there were still some folks that seemed unhappy with
>> >the proposed change. I'd be interested in understand why. Only itojun
>> >spoke up on this point, and he stated this would make site-local
>> >addresses more attractive, which he didn't consider a feature. :-)
>> >
>> >Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
At 09.08.2002 16:24, Jim Fleming wrote:
>http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz
>http://www.Powerpipe.com $7.99
>http://www.10-Domains.com $9.00
>http://www.WebHero.com $9.95
>http://www.RegisterFly.com $9.99
>http://www.iaregistry.com $11.95
>http://www.totalregistrations.com $12.00
>http://www.namesecure.com $12.00
>http://www.domaininvestigator.com $12.47
>
>Registra...Registry...Registrar...Reseller...Webmaster...Customer
>
>Jim Fleming
>2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|