Re: (ngtrans) Re: pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 07 June 2001 04:25 UTC
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA15394 for <ngtrans-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.170.5]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA25092; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id VAA27770; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.11.4+Sun/8.11.4) id f574Ods27501 for ngtrans-dist; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (engmail3 [129.144.170.5]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.11.4+Sun/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f574Oae27494 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.5.43]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id VAA27616 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07533 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:24:41 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01140; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106070424.AAA01140@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: itojun@iijlab.net
cc: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:00:02 +0900." <27018.991882802@itojun.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:24:35 -0400
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
we have to make it VERY sure that the purpose of the block
(3ffe:fff0::/28) is different from RFC1918 private address space.
i hope that 01 draft to have more warnings to make it clearer.
as far as I can tell, this is very close to the same purpose as RFC 1918.
I don't know why we would expect different results this time around.
instead, why don't we encourage folks who are doing testing to get an IPv4
address from somewhere (surely they can find one...) and use the 6to4
address block derived from that IPv4 address? they don't have to exchange
traffic between those nodes and the rest of the network if they don't
want to. but if they later decide they do want to exchange traffic
using those addresses, it will be possible for them to do so.
let's also make sure to tell them to not build those 6to4 addresses
out of RFC 1918 addresses.
Keith
(this also illustrates a problem with address allocation guidelines -
folks need to be able to get globally-unique address blocks for use on
their private nets even if they will never route them on the
public internet - otherwise they will be unable to set up private
links between their private networks without either renumbering or NATs)