Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... )

From: Chris Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:52:33 -0800

I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, although I haven't
explicitly run the text by them.

The critical point is the initial sentence of the section:

"7.  Site-local Addressing

   No protocol modifications are made to support IPv6 site-local
   addressing."

I'm a little confused as to the reaction to this section given that first
sentence. The only thing I do with the other 2 sentences is to state how an
operator can utilize standard IS-IS distribution rules to allow for given
site-local distribution (scope).

I'm not trying to manipulate or change or interpret the meaning of
site-local addresses at all. This is on purpose.

For the record folks, this draft has been implemented by at least 3 major
vendors and has been around, basically unchanged, for over 2 years.

Thanks,
Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:19 AM
To: Naiming Shen
Cc: 'Chris Hopps'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... )

One would be prudent to chat with the chairs of the IPv6 Ops WG
before putting "IPv6 site-local" into any draft.  Conversations
with Itojun indicate there are a number of unresolved issues,
including deployment/operations issues.  That aspect of IPv6
seems less stable than most.

Ran
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:01:09 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote:
> I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks,

WHICH IPv6 folks ?  There are at least 2 sets to choose from.
IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG,
the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can 
tell).

Ran