Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 18/2/21 21:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> So, my thought (and it belongs on this thread OR the 'IPv6 addressing: Gaps?' one) is something like:
> 
> We should abolish, delete, expunge and deprecate the word "scope" from all IPv6 documents. It clearly doesn't have an agreed meaning, so it is worse than useless.

FWIW, wfm. :-)

And, if one gets rid of "scopes", probably RFC4007 boils down to a much 
shorter document.

(Modulo: the multicast folks do use "scope" in a more "successful" way, 
IIRC?)


> All addresses have a region of reachability. This may be confined to a single "link" (whatever a "link" means), some type of limited domain (such as, but not limited to, a "site" (whatever a "site" means)), or to a large part of the Internet as a whole (knowing that there is in reality no such thing as "the" Internet.)
> 
> LL addresses MUST NOT be used off a given L2 link.
> ULAs MUST NOT be routed outside a given limited domain.
> GUAs MAY be routed anywhere.
> 
> (MANETs and other mesh networks don't fit in there very well.)

I guess limited-domain might also work for manets?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492