Subject: RE: Node Requirements Issue 3

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:13:51 -0500

Folks,

Richard has stated he has implemented this and has customers.  Lets here
him out.
I don't like them either but that means something to me anyway.

Richard ???

/jim
[Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:52 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Richard Draves; Keith Moore; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Node Requirements Issue 3 
> 
> 
> > I believe often an issue here is that OS/application 
> vendors can just 
> > bind all the local services to nodes' site-local addresses, 
> and make 
> > the security someone else's (ie router vendor, because site locals 
> > must not go out of the site) problem.
> 
> IMHO this is a really good reason for deprecating SLs entirely.
> 
> if nothing else, we should make it very clear that it is not 
> acceptable 
> for developers/vendors to assume that the threats from the 
> local network 
> are less, or significantly different, than the threats presented by 
> the global Internet.
> 
> Keith
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:25:07 -0500

> Richard has stated he has implemented this and has customers.  Lets here

by all means, if there are good reasons to impose this considerable burden
on applications, let's hear them.  

of course, just because there are implementations of SL and that customers 
have bought those implementations doesn't mean that widespread use of SLs 
is something that IETF should endorse.

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:10:49 +0100

> is something that IETF should endorse.

For what it's worth I agree. If we now specify a RFC1918 like structure 
for IPv6, we will be faced with people doing NAT like structures -  for 
whatever reason, and a lot of what is considered the drive for IPv6 is 
gone.

I have long argued that IPv6 only contribution to networking is a 
increase in addressing space - there is nothing I can do on IPv6 that I 
can't do on IPv4. A lot of people have then told me that IPv6 would 
help with peer-to-peer communications. With SL this is gone. Even if 
there might be reasons for a site to not need globally unique 
addresses, the problem is that at some point in the future that device 
will be on the net, and instead of renumbering, someone will do IPv6 
NAT and the peer-to-peer/end-to-end models are gone. I agree that I 
don't think the installed base is a problem. If the small installations 
we have now is a problem, the problem of renumbering these sites with 
global addresses is not going to become smaller.

History will repeat it self.

- kurtis -