Re: Fwd: IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations

["Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>]

At 16:42 19/03/2006 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> > Resend of original message as i apparently did not reach the overall 
> > v6ops alias.
> ....
>
> Overall, I liked this doc.

That is always nice to hear :-)

> This would seem to be the logical place to put in the critical bits (if 
> any) from Jordi's point-to-point doc, as well.
>
> A few small comments,
>
> - in section 2.1, "allocation" should be "assignment"

ok

> - in secyion 2.4.1, the HD-ratio for v6 is for *sites* not addresses like 
> in v4

ok

> - the embedded-RP part was already commented on.
> - in section 4.3, there's an uppercase SHOULD for CGA regeneration, but 
> this kind of doc shouldn't use uppercase keywords

ok

> - in section 4.3, CGA's aren't really indistinguishable, because if you 
> know (or guess) the public key of the sender, you can verify who it 
> belongs to.. but for many purposes, these have similar properties.
>  - section 4.4, as above, you shouldn't need to mention embedded-RP 
> reserved addresses.  These are not reserved by default: it's the local 
> admin's decition whether to put an RP at one of those interface-ID's, so 
> they be used freely (though I'd advise that hosts still shouldn't use those).

the last sentence between brackets is the awareness we wanted to achieve.

Thanks again for the reading the document and for the review comments.

Brgds,
G/






> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings