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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:39:58 +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.
> 
> 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.

Local might still be OK, if you think that the addresses have 'local' relevance
not global relevance. One possible meaning of local is: 

	Not broad or general; not widespread: such as 'local outbreaks of flu.'

In that sense, I am happy with the term local, at least until someone proposes
something better.

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 18:47:08 -0500

> In that sense, I am happy with the term local, at least until someone 

it would really seem odd to me to use a "local address" to talk to a 
host that is halfway across the world.

that, and I'm concerned that people will think that "local" means, or 
is intended for, only the portion of the network that uses that same 
prefix - and/or that it's reasonable to expect traffic to be filtered 
at the edges of that portion of the network.