Subject: RE: Regarding site-local addresses

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:39:37 -0800

Hi Jim,

I'm not sure I fully understand your position.

Jim Bound writes:
> Don't agree, global addresses will work.
> There is enough of them and the 
> only reason Net 10 will exist.

Are you saying that to use IPv6 on more than a single link, you must have a
global prefix available?  That's the case if we eliminate site-local
addresses.

I think this is an unreasonable restriction on the use of IPv6.  Every
multi-link use of IPv6 should not require an Internet connection.  Which it
will since with IPv6, unlike IPv4, you only "lease" (from your ISP) not
"own" (from a registry) your IP address space.  You have to have an
ISP-provided allocation to get global addresses.  Every factory floor,
private home, etc. is not going to want to have a permanent Internet
connection.  This would prevent, for example, a home with multiple links
from using IPv6 when not dialed into their ISP.

I think some form of site-local addressing is required to handle
disconnected and occasionally connected nets.  If we don't mandate a
site-local prefix now, people will just start picking random ones for their
disconnected networks until the whole net 10 story repeats itself.

Two messages ago, I thought you were saying that we should recreate a net-10
equivalent within the global address space.  But I fail to see how that
differs from the currently defined site-local addresses, except for the
particular pattern of bits used for the prefix.

> Where is the draft that discusses the use of
> site-local addresses?

RFC 2373, section 2.5.8.  Everything I'm arguing for here is defined there
in just 13 lines of text.  You said in an earlier message that you would
object to forwarding this RFC from Proposed to Draft standard because of
this issue, and I'm trying to understand your objections.

> Do you think its Erik's?

No, Erik's draft is a proposal for a method for performing site-specific
name resolution.  It has nothing to do with the specification and use of the
addresses themselves.

> If so do you agree we should do that?
> We can't do it 10 different ways.

At the moment, I'm ambivalent about Erik's draft.  I agree that if we decide
to do site-specific name resolution that we should do it in the same (or at
least an interoperable) way.  But it does seem to me that there is room here
for local solutions (Erik's draft is an exception because it affects the
global DNS).  But that's a separate issue for the "Regarding site-local name
resolution" thread.

> >IPv6 does work.  So do site-local addresses.
> >I strongly urge everyone to keep them as part
> >of the standard or we'll be needlessly
> >excluding many potential uses of IPv6.
> 
> They do not work in a standard interoperable
> manner and the IETF has no spec on their use
> other than Eriks.

The spec is RFC 2373, and our implementation will interoperate with any
other that follows it.  I don't understand your claim that they don't work.
If you want more explanation than is in 2373, Steve Deering has said he
would write a more explanatory draft (and has asked me to join him on it).
Would that be useful?

> Are you saying we have no work to do on
> site-local addresses in the working group?

With the addresses themselves?  Yes, I'm happy with how they're defined in
RFC 2373.  I think that provides the folks over in the zeroconf area, for
example, with all they need to use IPv6.  If you want to support
site-specific name resolution, that still needs to be resolved, as does
(dare I say it) the API issue.  But the specification of the addresses
themselves and how they're used by the protocol seems fine to me.

If you're saying we have to every possible end use and aspect of site-local
addresses figured out before we can include them, than I disagree with you.
I will note that you recently stated in another message that we shouldn't
let lack of multicast routing experience prevent IPv6 deployment (and thus
the currently defined multicast addresses, which are also specified by RFC
2373).

Other follow-up answers:

> >No, a site-specific directory can hold
> >site-local addresses.
> 
> No one on this appears to want them in DNS
> any place else is another discussion and
> proposal.  Also their identity would need to 
> be defined.

More specifically, no one on this list appears to want scope-ids in the DNS.
Site-local addresses is another story (Erik's draft is an example of putting
site-local addresses in the global DNS; my reference above was to putting
site-local addresses in a site-specific directory, which could be a private
DNS).  But you're right, this discussion belongs in another thread.

I don't understand what you mean by "identity", could you clarify this
please?

> >Everything else is UI/API.  The only hard
> >part here has been getting all the makers
> >of stacks for "old style" computers (the
> >kind people sit in front of and type at)
> >to agree on the UI/API.  The "new device"
> >crowd could care less.  Site-locals will
> >work just fine for them.  All they need
> >is already in RFC 2373.
> 
> Simply don't agree.  

Which part?  There are 5 sentences there.  All of it?  I pretty sure
everyone on this list would agree that getting everyone to agree on the API
has been hard :-)

--Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:29:30 +0100

> from using IPv6 when not dialed into their ISP.

About what I wanted to say.

	-is

-- 
 * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
   smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
   smart terminals.  -- [email-masked] (obscurity)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:50:52 -0500

Brian,

>I'm not sure I fully understand your position.

Then any more mail on this list is not going to help or yet another
response.  I will be working on Erik's draft at this point. If we can
define a workable solution then thats great.

But if 2373 went to go for DS I would just send my objection to the IESG
at this point as one engineers view, until I see a draft like Eriks that
demonstrates the use of site-local addresses that has consensus. And I 
would claim to the IESG as one of the Ipv6 architects, long-time 
implementor of IPv6, and one of the diehard champions of IPv6, that they 
need to see more about site-locals than we have done thus far for that 
address type, before making it a DS which means its essence is frozen.

I am done discussing it here, based on the nasty probes I am getting.
Like Francis's too and yours.  Itojun is talking to me the way he talks
I have no issue with that mail exchange.  Tim is just tired of the
discussion as is Matt.  Several people has the common sense to send me
private mail to see where I was coming from which I appreciate if things
get confused.

There are enough IPv6 addresses that we should never need Net-10 for
even the lightbulb in my fridge.

Brian Carpenters mail convinced me to move on here not yours or the
other mail.  He hit the nail on the head.  It is tactically required
to support them and I will not win the political battle even if I could
win the technical battle.

Also all this mail has completely convinced me that IPv6 is DEFINITELY
NOT READY FOR FULL STANDARD status, and for that I am grateful. Per a
discussion in another forum we are both on.  

p.s. the problem with your word "complaining" in previous mail is as
follows.  saying I am complaining is like saying I am "whining" saying I
have objections is fine.  words to me are important they convey
attitude.  I too use words like that but own up to them when I do.
And sometimes those words are important to use.  right now I am a bit
mifted at you and your presentation, I will get over it but my genetic
makeup and lifes experiences taught me to not "hold" grudges, hell I
"embrace" them.  But I will get over it in time.

/jim