Ross Finlayson <finlayson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As much as I agree that we should honor significant IETF contributors
> like Fred, I’m worried that reserving an IPv6 address for this seems a
> bit ‘cliquish’, and contrary to the intent of IPv6.
Yes, but it's our clique!
I don't claim to even know what the point of IPv6 is :-)
Dancing turtles and cat videos.
I was at a series of meetings 20 (?!) years ago with **Fred** on Smart Metering,
where multiple people wanted smart meters to all use 10.x addresses, and
suggested we should be routing XML instead of using IPv6.
(Some of those people were still running DOS 5.0 on their laptops. I kid you not)
> And who decides whether or not a deceased IETF contributor is
> ’significant’ enough to be honored in this way?
The IESG.
> Why not do this for
> all deceased IETF members?
yes, why not. Petitition the IESG.
Honestly, I don't think it will be a problem in practice.
(Does the IESG have time? Look we spend plenary time on obits.
Make this an IAB, LLC problem. Hell make it an IETF trust problem if you prefer)
Who are IETF members? Dunno, since we have no franchise, we'd have to limit
it to people with DT accounts.
> Or all deceased (or living) humans; we do,
> indeed, have enough space within a /64 for this?
yeah, we certainly do.
v6 space is not scarce. Maybe this will help people remember that. Does IANA have enough disk space
> What do we want to
> happen if such an address is used in the destination field of an IPv6
> packet?
BTW: that Special Purpose space (2001::/23) is filled with things which should never
appear in the destination field of an packet on the DFZ.
(I wonder if anyone announces it with a drop community string.)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
