Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:44:07 -0500

>
>PS: I hope that a fundamental RFC like addrarch will be
>available soon!! If we keep this infinite loop going
>people will use 2373 and we'll end up in a lose lose situation.

This discussion should have no affect on the publication of
the addr arch RFC, which is currently in the IESG awaiting
approval for publication as a Draft Standard.

We have quite a strong consensus that we need to keep the site-local
address allocation in the addressing architecture, regardless of
how/if we later restrict the use of these addresses.

This discussion concerns what we should say about the _use_ of
site-local unicast addresses in the scoped addressing architecture
(which is still an I-D).

Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:37:57 +0200 (EET)

> approval for publication as a Draft Standard.

No, I don't think so -- there's at least one point you missed, consider
e.g.:

2.5.6 Local-Use IPv6 Unicast Addresses

   Routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or
   destination addresses outside of the site.

This conflicts with the "treat as globals" stance.
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:49:51 -0500

>This conflicts with the "treat as globals" stance.

Not really.  If we define that site-local unicast addresses can only
be used on non-globally-connected sites, there won't be any site-
border routers that need to worry about this restriction.

But, that doesn't make the restriction false.  Site-local addresses
should never be forward outside of a site.

Margaret

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:52:34 +0200 (EET)

> should never be forward outside of a site.

And what about:

   Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of
   a site without the need for a global prefix.  Although a subnet ID
   may be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that globally-connected
   sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global
   prefixes.

I think if we want to go down the road discussed in this thread, I believe 
some (relatively minor) changes in addrarch could clarify many things.