Subject: RE: More misinformation on IPv6

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:11:42 -0700

Before someone dings me on this, I'd like to add this addendum to my last
post.  I was trying not to be too pedantic and ended up under-specifying.  I
shouldn't be attempting to think this late in my day.

> From: Brian Zill
> 
> The IPv6 specifications 
> allow for, and every IPv6 stack implementation 
> that I've seen provides the capability for, the end user to 
> manually set their address to whatever they want.

There are a lot of caveats to "whatever they want" above.  Both IPv4 and
IPv6 have reserved addresses or prefixes for things like loopback,
multicast, broadcast (in the case of v4), etc.  The registries care about
what you use for the upper bits if you want to join the global Internet.
And both IPv4 and IPv6 require that the part of the address that identifies
the end host on the local link (varies with the subnet mask for v4, called
the interface identifier in v6) be locally unique, etc.

The important take-away point was that both IPv4 and IPv6 allow the end host
identifier part of the address to be user specified.  And users can change
their address at any time, v6 users just have a lot more bits to play with.
Getting packets routed to them is another matter, but again, this is just
like v4.

--Brian

Usual disclaimers apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Dunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:00:34 +0100

I agree with Tim, But maybe it would be better if we provided the relevant input before the article was published. Many people will read the article and take it as seen, without ever checking the flip side of the coin and going to the technical directorate web site to get the full story.

Maybe we can formulate a formal process for dealing with the press so that they get the full story, both problems and proposed resolutions. That is after all what we are all doing, someone has a problem and we collectively bang heads to get the best resolution to that problem.

Maybe each of the working groups could nominate a "press Officer", I know it's overly bureaucratic and not really the IETF way but the potential benefits could far outway any negative side. This officer could answer to the area directors of that particular working group and would be intimately familiar with the issues at hand in order to give all of the facts in a clear and concise manner to the press, who would then be diseminating information straight from the horses mouth as it were.

Just an Idea.......(my $0.02)

Jim

Jim Dunn
IP Network Engineer (2nd Line)

BT Internet Operations Centre

E-mail:	[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tim Chown [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	14 October 1999 10:51
To:	Brian Zill
Cc:	'Richard M. Smith'; Guy Davies; [email-masked]
Subject:	RE: More misinformation on IPv6

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Brian Zill wrote:

> Finally, it's worth noting that the BBC article also misrepresents Thomas's
> proposal as "manual configuration" (via placement of Thomas' quote
> immediately after a paragraph paraphrasing Fred Baker describing such).

If you look on the bright side, we at least have a BBC story which
raises the profile and awareness of IPv6;  as a result a few more
people will look to find out more about it.

I did some background reading before the Paris IPv6 Forum meeting and
found some 30 or so IPv6 stories in the online press this year (and 
I'm sure there's a lot more).  At least 75% were positive, and many
relatively quite well written, e.g. "The Great Number Crunch" article.

I think the Forum can help by tracking online press stories, and
providing some sanitised commentary on articles (with Technical
Directorate input) on its own web site.  Linking to "bad" press is 
something that I feel should be done, so that any misconceptions can 
be highlighted.  Considered and rational debunking of articles may put
some pressure on the publishers to check facts more tightly.  

Some reporters will always seek sensationalist stories, and not be
interested in reader feedback;  at least this reporter quoted Fred Baker
and stated that the IETF is addressing the issue, even if some assertions
were a bit wobbly.

Tim