Subject: RE: comments on draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:05:14 +0200

Keith,

> So - yes, we need addresses that can be easily allocated for local use 
> (and perhaps for other purposes also), but they should not carry with 
> them any assumptions about the degree of locality or proximity, 
> trustworthiness, filtering, or policy.

I agree.  I think that in documenting addresses allocated for local
use, we should not imply that these addresses have any particular
properties, except that they are intended for local use.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:36:42 -0500

> properties, except that they are intended for local use.

even the word "local" might be too much.  it is not out of the question 
for networks from all over the world to agree to exchange traffic using 
GUPIs and/or PUPIs.