/**/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de> To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@Ameritech.Net> Cc: "GA List Monitoring" <ga-abuse@dnso.org> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:55 AM Subject: [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras) > > Jim, > > please keep in mind that this is a forum for DNSO work, > decidedly *not* a place to post registrar recommendations > and *not* a place for extensive discussion of the > address space (to discuss this, go to aso-policy@aso.icann.org). > Please to be warned that off-topic postings are violating > the list rules and can lead to a suspension of posting > rights. > > Regards, > /// GA List Monitor > > At 09.08.2002 17:34, Jim Fleming wrote: > >Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ? > > > >Jim Fleming > >2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden@iprg.nokia.com> > >To: "IPv6 List" <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com> > >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:27 PM > >Subject: Changes to IPv6 Addressing Architecture Draft > > > > > >> > >> At the IPv6 working group sessions at the Yokohama IETF two changes to the > >> IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture draft > >> > >> <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-08.txt> > >> > >> were discussed. These changes were proposed based on feedback received > >> from our area director and email discussion on the mailing list. A summary > >> of the AD comments is include at the end of the email. > >> > >> The changes that were proposed at the meeting were to relax the interface > >> identifier uniqueness requirements (from the link to subnet prefix) and to > >> change the definition of Site-Local addresses to make the subnet field > >> 54-bits (and eliminate the 38-bit zero field). > >> > >> After discussing the proposed changes, a consensus was reached at the > >> Yokohama meeting to make them. The purpose of this email is to validate > >> that consensus on the mailing list and to review the specific changes to > >> the internet draft. > >> > >> The proposed changes (changed lines marked by "|") to the ID are as follows: > >> > >> Change to second sentence in the first paragraph of section 2.5.1: > >> > >> Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify > >> interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet | > >> prefix. They may also be unique over a broader scope. In some cases | > >> an interface's identifier will be derived directly from that > >> interface's link-layer address. The same interface identifier may be > >> used on multiple interfaces on a single node, as long as they are > >> attached to different links. > >> > >> and from section 2.5.6 where site-local is defined: > >> > >> Site-Local addresses have the following format: > >> > >> | 10 | > >> | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits | > >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ > >> |1111111011| subnet ID | interface ID | | > >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ > >> > >> Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of > >> a site without the need for a global prefix. Although a subnet ID may | > >> be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that most globally-connected | > >> sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global prefixes. | > >> > >> > >> If there is agreement with these changes I will submit a new draft (-09) > >> that the area directors can proceed with. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Comments from Thomas Narten: > >> > >> >1) The -07 ID contains the wording: > >> > > >> > > Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify > >> > > interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique on that link. > >> > > >> >Given the on-going issues surrounding DAD vs DIID, I felt it > >> >appropriate to check with the WG whether this wording was indeed what > >> >the WG believed the architecture should require. > >> > > >> >2) The -07 ID contains the wording: > >> > > >> > > Site-Local addresses have the following format: > >> > > > >> > > | 10 | > >> > > | bits | 38 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | > >> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+ > >> > > |1111111011| 0 | subnet ID | interface ID | > >> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+ > >> > > >> >Given that the fixed 16-bit subnet ID in global addresses was changed > >> >to one having a flexible boundary, the subnet ID in site-locals should > >> >also not have a fixed boundary. Note that other parts of the document > >> >showing addresses were updated to use generic "m" bits, rather than > >> >fixing the field at 16 bits, under the concern that implementations > >> >*might* somehow hardcode the boundary in their implementations. > >> > > >> >Also, it might be good to clarify that the middle bits are undefined > >> >and should be 0. I.e., implementors could interpret the above words as > >> >saying the bits are defined to always be zero (as opposed to just > >> >reserved for future use and MUST be zero), which could lead > >> >implementations to somehow check that those bits are 0, and if not, do > >> >something incorrect (like signal an error). > >> > > >> >The specific text that was proposed and discussed at the Yokohama > >> >meeting addresses the main concern I had. > >> > > >> >At the meeting, there were still some folks that seemed unhappy with > >> >the proposed change. I'd be interested in understand why. Only itojun > >> >spoke up on this point, and he stated this would make site-local > >> >addresses more attractive, which he didn't consider a feature. :-) > >> > > >> >Thomas > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > >> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > >> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > >> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >-- > >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. > >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html > > At 09.08.2002 16:24, Jim Fleming wrote: > >http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz > >http://www.Powerpipe.com $7.99 > >http://www.10-Domains.com $9.00 > >http://www.WebHero.com $9.95 > >http://www.RegisterFly.com $9.99 > >http://www.iaregistry.com $11.95 > >http://www.totalregistrations.com $12.00 > >http://www.namesecure.com $12.00 > >http://www.domaininvestigator.com $12.47 > > > >Registra...Registry...Registrar...Reseller...Webmaster...Customer > > > >Jim Fleming > >2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > > > > > > >-- > >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. > >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html >