Subject: Request to Advance "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:52:57 -0800

Erik, Thomas,

The chairs of the IP Next Generation working group, on behalf of the 
working group, request that the following document be published as an Draft 
Standard:

	Title		: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
	Author(s)	: B. Hinden, S. Deering
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt
	Pages		: 27
	Date		: 27-Nov-01

A working group last call for this document was completed on August 31, 
2001.  The -07 version of the draft resolves issues raised during the 
working group last call and subsequent discussion.  A summary of the 
comments received on the mailing list and their disposition is attached.

This document will obsolete RFC2373.  Changes from RFC2373 are listed in 
Appendix B.

Bob Hinden / Steve Deering
IPng Working Group Co-Chairs

------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT 1: Suggestion that it isn't good practice to talk about assigning 
multicast address to an interface because it may confuse people and they 
might be assigned directly to interfaces (e.g., via ifconfig command).

Text will be changed to clarify this issue.

COMMENT 2: Questioned whether the IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 address 
should be included in the document.

This was discussed at the interim meeting in Seattle and there was a 
consensus to keep the mapped and compatible address in this 
document.  Other types of transition addresses can be defined in other 
documents.

COMMENT 3: Suggestion that the anycast usage scenarios in the document are 
very router centric and restrictions for router only usage be eased.

The current text will be revised to clarify that other anycast usage is 
possible, but that new uses need to be specified.

COMMENT 4: Suggestion that there be more clarification on the differences 
between interface, link, and node in section 2.7 on multicast addresses.

Will add a summary description of the multicast scope values to the document.

COMMENT 5: Questioned the removal of the format prefix (FP) and detailed FP 
table, and instead only listing the exceptions to global unicast.

This issue was discussed on the mailing list and there was a consensus that 
the current text is appropriate.  The resulting behavior of treating the 
address space as global unicast, except for the listed exceptions, is correct.

COMMENT 6: Suggestion to reserve some part of the IPv6 and have it's usage 
be unspecified.

The discussion on the mailing concluded was this was not a good idea.  Past 
experience with IPv4 indicated that it becomes very hard to utilize 
"unspecified" address space in the future.

COMMENT 7: Suggestion to move IANA considerations to a numbered section 
instead of an appendix to make clearer it is normative.

Document will be updated to make the IANA consideration a numbered section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:14:22 +0100

Just a comment, not about the document itself. At the last ETSI
IPv6 plugtest I did some tests about anycast support:
 - source routing with a subnet anycast (something like please
   go through this routing domain / sub-network)
 - source routing with multiple anycasts (the same one)
 - ping to an anycast address
 - telnet to an anycast address
Without more details, I can say I am very unhappy of the results!
Perhaps anycasts are toys but when you see how they are supported
you should not propose them for real things...
Please be a bit more serious boys (:-)!

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:23:01 -0600

http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial

C@t-32-BitOID:UnirVerse0QQQQGGGWWWXXXXX32-Bit Managed Address0000000000000000

Jim Fleming
http://www.ddj.com/articles/search/search.cgi?q=fleming
Oct93: The C+@ Programming Language