Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:33:15 +0100

> > >and what compelling purpose does all of this complexity serve?
  > > >none that I can see.
  > > 
  > > I think that this is a key question.
  > > 
  > > Could folks who support the use of site-local addresses on
  > > globally-connected networks explain what benefits they
  > > offer that out-weigh the considerable costs?
  > 
  > Are you suggesting that someone should actually write router code to
  > prevent this (i.e., treat site-locals as anything other than regular
  > unicast addresses)?
  > 
  > It would be better to produce a "Use of Non-Globally 
  > Reachable Unicast
  > Addresses" BCP rather than put meaningless restrictions on 
  > address use
  > in the specs.

=> This makes a lot more sense IMHO. How can we write
"MUST NOT use site-local when global addresses are available"
in a spec? I mean how can we enforce that? If we can't enforce
a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then it shouldn't be in the spec
in the first place. 

Hesham

  > 
  > 
  > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  > Steven L. Blake               <[email-masked]>
  > Ericsson IP Infrastructure                +1 919-472-9913
  > 
  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 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: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:52:30 -0500

> If we can't enforce a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then it shouldn't be in
> the spec in the first place.

Does not follow.  The IETF has no enforcement authority.

						- Bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:57:30 -0500

> This makes a lot more sense IMHO. How can we write

how can IETF enforce anything it puts in a spec?  by that logic
we should get rid of all IETF standards, because IETF has no
means of enforcing them.

surely it's reasonable for IETF standards to establish constraints
on the use of IETF standards.  if you violate those constraints 
you can no longer expect to interoperate, and any interoperability
failures you cause are your own fault.  that's about all it's ever
meant to violate an IETF standard, I don't see why this case should
be any different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------