Subject: Re: Regarding site-local addresses

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:40:57 -0800 (PST)

Jim,

> 
> >I agree with Brian on all counts.  Something like Net 10 will exist in the
> >IPv6 world.  By defining site-local addresses within the architecture we
> >have the opportunity to get it done right so that all of the problems which
> >exist in the IPv4 world with Net 10 won't exist at all, or will be lessened
> >substantially, in the IPv6 world.
> 
> The reasons for net 10 in IPv4 do not exist in IPv6.
>

I simply disagree with this assertion.  And that is all it is, an assertion.
The use of Net 10 in the IPv4 world is driven by more than just the lack
of available globally routeable address space.

Given that local addresses are both useful and problematic in IPv4 there is a
powerful argument for trying to make them available and less probematic in
the IPv6 world.  The alternative is to wait for customer demand to force
there existance at some point in the future when it will be impossible to
make them less problematic.

Additionally, as Matt pointed out, there are new reasons in IPv6 for private
addressing.  Specifically, easier support for renumbering.

> 
> Consenus was we would like them in the architecture.  But after two
> years we have no solutions.  In any research activity if there are no
> solutions for something it is valid to re-check their merit.  That is
> what is being done here and I will continue to do it on anything in IPv6
> that is not being used or has been defined clearly.
> 
> What is being asked is there still consensus for this part of IPv6. You
> francis, and Brian say yes.  3 of us say no.  So I guess we need to hear from
> more folks.  
> 
> We do not have consensus.
>

So how many more times are we going to "vote" on this.  Ten, twenty, fifty?
As many as it takes to get the answer one side or the other wants?  That is
what your first paragraph implies.  Everytime we start working on a solution
we have to go back to square one and reevaluate the previous consensus?  That
doesn't sound productive.

The reason we can't get to solutions is specifically because everytime some-
one starts working on and attempting to discuss a solution we end up arguing
about issues that have already been decided.  As a result folks that don't
have a bounty of extra time to simply waste on arguing the same points give
up on the discussion and try and get some work done.  As a result no complete
solutions, just full E-mail boxes.

> if we do then this time lets find a solution before we go changing
> things because of them.
> 

We have tried repeatedly to get discussions going on solutions.  Every single
time we end up arguing the same points over and over.  Very tiresome.

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 00:51:38 -0500

Tim,

This is very important and I recall when Erik first put his draft out
very few of us responded and I was one of them.  But now two years later
after not reaching consensus on that draft I see less than optimal
discussions on the use of this feature in IPv6.  And it has affected
anyone who has deployed IPv6 as a user not worrying about site-local
addresses.  For that reason and for that reason only it deservers this
barage of discussion if for no other reason to drift us towards working
on a solution that can be implemented.

It sounds like Rich Draves is about ready to respond to Eriks proposal
and I will as I said I would very soon (I wanted to look at
implementation affects first) that will get us where you want to go.

But if we deploy something and then we have to break our users because
of a piece of IPv6 architecture that was not well defined previously you
can count on me checking it to death.  It could be things have changed
and the reasons we wanted and supported something two years ago have
changed.

Also at Wash D.C. I had many many people come up to me with out me prompting
them and say "I wish site-local addresses were dead" but we got them now
and have to live with them.  This alone deserved the position I took by
"my" standards.

I don't think they are needed, will never be needed, the market will not
need them, they are an illusion to help renumbering, but it is going to
be one of those things yet again we put in IPv6 that will create more
bloat and the resolver part of our code is getting pretty bloated
lately:

   Parse A6 Records - did I get all the addresses or just some where
   the chain is known.

   Source/Address and Matching Selection 

   Keep cache of interfaces for the above.

   More code to support getaddrinfo or at least we have to move it
   around.

   Now lets parse for scope and site-identifier prefixes

And we don't have consensus we have a few saying we have discussed this,
lets move on, we have been here before, etc.  So what! thats what this
iterative process is all about.  Its working on the standard for IPv6.
This is new ground not known to any of us really, it is not like Net 10
at all whatsoever.  

But I intend to go work on Eriks draft and will leave it to others to
send in their thoughts.  We have had much more people say shoot
site-local in the head than lets keep them.

But I see your point and your frustration I hope you can see mine.

/jim

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 09:16:00 -0600

Jim, you keep saying we never had consensus on site-local addresses
but obviously we did because 2373 passed WG & IETF last call.  Please
make it clear that you're talking about Erik's site-prefixes draft,
if that's what you do mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 11:21:16 -0500

>if that's what you do mean.

thats a good point.  Yes I am working on Eriks draft now.
I am off this topic.

There is a lot in 2373.  I think there is a bug with site-local.

/jim