Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

How about simply calling whatever we end up with "organizational addresses"?
I think that captures it much better than "local", "site local", "private"
or whatever.

   Brian

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
> > 1. To number systems/interfaces that are only accessible from withing
> > the local network.
> >...
> > In the case of 1. the scope is site local, although the difinition of
> > "site" may be subject to change.
> 
> Perhaps it'd clear things up if we changed the common name to
> "org(anization) local" addresses?  I believe that was the intent behind the
> original site-local addresses, but many/most end-users have more than one
> phyiscal site and may be confused.
> 
> > Being able to route these addresses throughout the internet would be
> > more of a drawback than a usable feature, as packets using these
> > addresses may not enter or leave the network.
> 
> I think it would be reasonable to add a section explicitly stating such
> addresses SHOULD NOT be routed in public networks, but that end-user
> organizations MAY use them amongst themselves on private connections.
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------