Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:46:22 -0800

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> A Monica strike is what Bill Clinton did a while ago:
>> Make a lot of noise launching a bunch of cruise
>> missiles at Saddam to try to get the people's
>> attention away from the fact that he had a young
>> lady under his desk.

> Margaret Wasserman
> Okay, so I am confused how it applies here.

There's been a lot of noise here lately, without real reasons, and it
has not produced much results either.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:58:52 -0500

> has not produced much results either.

You can call a concrete proposal to eliminate a chunk of unnecessary
router complexity "noise" if you like, but I'll have to disagree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:54:46 -0500

>has not produced much results either.

At the point where you believe that a mail thread has reached
the end of its useful life, you should stop responding.  When
everyone feels that way, it will end.

Margaret

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:59:52 -0800

> everyone feels that way, it will end.

The problem with that theory is that the consensus is generally measured
as a thread is dying down. If everyone that believes this attempt to
subvert a long standing architectural decision is a waste, suddenly
stopped sending, there would be a proclamation that SL is revoked. After
all, there would be clear evidence that everyone that felt strongly
enough to comment wanted it removed...

The real point is that some app developers have figured out that having
an architected space makes it easier for them to know when connectivity
will be broken, but others have not. The arguments by those that have
not figured it out are much more about disallowing 'broken connectivity'
than they are about figuring out when that happens. Reality says that
network managers want to, and will break connectivity when it is in
their interest, and no amount of IETF documentation to the contrary will
prevent that. 

We can choose to leave the network managers to figure out their own
adhoc mechanisms, or we can put them in a structured space so that apps
will have a chance to react appropriately.

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:24:27 -0500

> will be broken, 

I wish you'd stop making such blatently false statements.  It is insulting
to everyone in this group and it doesn't contribute usefully to the
discussion.

Keith

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:50:42 -0800

Keith Moore wrote:
> > The real point is that some app developers have figured out that 
> > having an architected space makes it easier for them to know when 
> > connectivity will be broken,
> 
> I wish you'd stop making such blatently false statements.  It 
> is insulting to everyone in this group and it doesn't 
> contribute usefully to the discussion.

Please read the following:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:22 PM   Brian Zill wrote:
> ...  Again, the solution 
> I've outlined is simple, practical, and works today.

Since I have first hand knowledge that Brian has actually done the
development work to make several applications IPv6 aware, my statement
is not blatently false. 

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:39:38 -0500

> development work to make several applications IPv6 aware, my statement

that lends zero support to the statement you gave earlier.

and has already been discussed, there are lots of applications for
which SLs don't cause a problem, so the fact the numerous apps have
been ported to v6 without major problems is not a compelling case 
for keeping SLs.

apps CANNOT know when connectivity will be broken by use of SLs
even if they know whether those SL addresses came in from the same
interface, which in general they won't.   

if you insist that the apps filter SLs when relaying outside of
their scope then you're artifically breaking connectivity - the
referrer doesn't know whether two nodes with SLs could have 
communicated directly or not.

that and use of SLs doesn't tell the app whether the communication 
was administratively prohibited, any more than globals do.

Keith