[ga-abuse] Re: [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras)

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

/**/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@Ameritech.Net>
Cc: "GA List Monitoring" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:55 AM
Subject: [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
>