Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:18:59 -0800

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Same as the other examples I used before: sensors/control
>> devices in a metropolitan water distribution system, or
>> in a power grid. SLs are a perfect choice for these, 

> Keith Moore wrote:
> no they're not.  because often the reason you want these
> sensors on IP in the first place is so that you don't have
> to provide your own infrastructure to talk to them at a
> distance.

I have to use the same word as Richard did before: crazyness.

Keith, what you are saying here is that the utility company is going to
have to use PA addresses, that it does not own, to configure tens of
thousands of devices on thousands of subnets, and be forced to renumber
if they want to switch ISPs, even though these devices have nothing to
do with the public Internet, just because you don't like SLs.

No, no and no.

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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:34:11 -0500

> I have to use the same word as Richard did before: crazyness.

let's just say that there's a lot of craziness going around.
 
> do with the public Internet, just because you don't like SLs.

and what you are saying is that everybody who wants to network together
large number of devices is going to create their own network infrastructure 
so they can use SL addresses (because dealing with globals is Just Too
Onerous) -- and that everybody else on the Internet needs to be burdened 
with SLs just so they can do that.  

I don't buy that for a nanosecond.

first, I don't buy that provider-based addresses are inherently that much 
of a burden.  and it's far easier to solve the renumbering problem (particularly
for special-purpose devices) than to solve the SL addressibility problem.

second, I don't buy that we're stuck with provider-based addresses anyway.

third, I don't buy that every company wants to set up its own infrastructure
to network to remote devices when they can take bids from competing providers 
who already have infrastructure - or even use a mixture of providers.   
(for instance, you can combine wired, wireless, satellite depending on 
where your devices are)

fourth, I don't buy that the existence of provider-based addresses is a 
compelling reason to burden us with SLs.

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 02:52:25 +0100

> do with the public Internet, just because you don't like SLs.

....and the day the utility company decides to outsource the monitoring 
they will have to renumber to global addresses anyway.

- kurtis -