Re: (sipp) New SIPP Addressing Draft

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> From: [e-mail] (Bob Hinden)
> This version reflects the change to SIPP to support 16byte addresses
> (from 8byte addresses) and the change made to the SIPP transition
> mechanisms (to remove the C-bit).
>
I have to agree, this version is a marked simplification over previous
versions.  There are a lot of typos, but I'll wait to point them all out
until we have been through some review and another draft.

I see that it will be very simple to change back to 64 bits when this
excursion into "silly" 128 size is over.

I particularly like the :: convention.  That will make things a lot easier
when writing about IPng.

I'm glad that the route reversal has been removed (it's _not_ really in
SIPP-16).  I always thought route reversal was a serious security risk.

Route reversal is also completely incompatible with mobility.  You won't
send a reply back over the same dogleg that it arrived from the
Correspondent via the Home Agent.

I disagree with removing the binding of addresses to interfaces.  I use
it in Neighbor Discovery.  I like using the same lower bits with
different higher bits.  Simplifies configuration.

I suggest, yet again, that loop-back be FF01::1.  This makes more sense
than yet another address.

I suggest, yet again, that IPX and all other "legacy" addresses be in
the "00" block, rather than split between the "00" and "Ex" blocks.

Indeed, I'd like to move the "local-use" there, too.  Makes it cleaner.
Keeps the main allocation blocks as big as they can be.

You go on the describe "provider", "subscriber", and "subnet" prefixes,
then never use them to describe routing.  I'd rather use the more
generic term we have in Mobile-IP: "routing-prefix".  "Cluster" should
mean the same thing -- a cluster is a group of routers with the same
routing prefix.

You don't define a Geographic prefix!  Then why a Proviver prefix?
After all, most of us will refuse to use a "provider" based prefix, and
be using geographical instead.

You describe a NSAP format, but not the more important IPX one.  Please
leave it in somebody else's separate draft.  Who gives a damn about
worthless NSAPs?  IPX is a real widely deployed protocol.

I'd put the "unspecified" address first, since it is in numerical order.

I was disappointed that there wasn't more routing description.  Not good
enough.  All you really do is describe addressing.

[e-mail]
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF SIPP Working Group - Archives:  parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/sipp
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe sipp		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to [e-mail]