[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: requesting fe80:1::/32 to IETF/IANA without writing a consensus-less I-D
From:       Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu () gmail ! com>
Date:       2019-04-19 22:11:04
Message-ID: 1bd108d9-208d-6de8-ff51-28b41e44462d () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]



Le 19/04/2019 à 19:38, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:38:47 +0200,
> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com 
> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>  > > There's nothing magical about the address
>  > > range that you're requesting.  You could just as easily request 
> another
>  > > address range without updating RFC4291.
>  >
>  > fe80:1::/32 breaks the 54 0 bits depicted by lls in Figure of RFC4291.
> 
> I suspect you two talk about different things.  I believe Nick meant a
> different address space than fe80::/10, similar to 2001:db8::/32
> reserved for documentation purposes.  If that serves your purpose,

Note: I retired from the IPv6-over-OCB draft.  The IPWAVE WG has 
consensus on 64.  I am not part of that.

For the suggestion of different address space than fe80::/10 - I need a 
space with link-local semantics, not ULA nor Global.

Once it is ULA or Global it means that routers may forward them.  I dont 
want them forwarded.

> you'll only need to publish something similar to RFC3849.  It didn't
> have to update the addressing architecture RFC, neither would such
> "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for IPv6-over-COB" document.  Publishing
> it would not be trivial either, but I can see it much more promising
> than trying to get new assignments within the special space of fe80::/10.
> 
> btw, I don't see it impolite at all:

MAybe impolite was not the right word.  I excuse.

Alex

> 
> At Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:25:43 +0100,
> Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
> 
>  > >>> I would like to request 3 fe80/32s via IETF / IANA without writing
>  > >>> another I-D.
>  > >>>
>  > >>> What is the process?
>  > >>
>  > >> You write another I-D.
>  > >>
>  > >> It will need to be standards track, to update RFC4291.
>  > >
>  > > If I write it, do you support it?
>  >
>  > I don't see any reason to.  [...]
> 
> You asked what is the process; he gave an answer to it, that's it.  He
> didn't even try to make you write it.  With all due respect, if you
> didn't alienate people who don't support your argument using such a
> strong word like politeness, you'd actually be more successful in
> getting support.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]