Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:24:58 +0100

> 
  > > => I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the IETF
  > > has an enforcement authority. I meant that this words
  > > are used in cases where: if not followed, the protocol
  > > will break. Therefore people generally follow them.
  > 
  > if SLs are used in an environment where applications communicate
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
  > across scope boundaries, 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=> In other words, be careful how you use it. That's not 
a reason to deprecate the use of site-locals altogether.

Hesham

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.

reasonably-written applications (including
  > apps using standard protocols) will break.
  > 
  > therefore MUST/MUST NOT restrictions seem appropriate.
  > 
  > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:49:25 -0500

>   > if SLs are used in an environment where applications communicate

Their use should be confined to completely isolated networks so that 
they don't break applications.   And yet this same constraint was imposed
on RFC 1918 and it didn't stop RFC 1918 addresses from being misused.
So yes, I think there's a compelling case for deprecating SLs entirely.
But I'd be happy to hear of a way to impose a 1918-like restriction
that would actually work this time around.

Keith