Subject: RE: Node Requirements Issue 3

From: "Richard Draves" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:53:00 -0700

This is craziness. We (I don't mean just MS) have shipping
implementations that support site-locals. We have operational
deployments using site-locals. We have applications that work just fine
with site-locals.

Rich

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:03:56 -0400

> deployments using site-locals. We have applications that work just fine

indeed, some applications work just fine with them.  but trying to
make applications in general work with limited-scope addresses - 
that's craziness.

fortunately your shipping implementations won't break if site-locals
aren't used.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:34:07 -0400

>  Without standards, or at least
> standards-track IDs, its hard to see how site-locals can be viewed as
> useful beyond a single-site configuration, with anything beyond that being
> experimental and/or proprietary.

more to the point, it's not even clear that we know how to write standards
that specify a reasonable way to use site-locals.

---

From: Roy Brabson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:32:22 -0400

> deployments using site-locals. We have applications that work just fine

Could you (or someone else who has this working) publish an ID which 
describes how site-locals work?  I've seen many postings on various 
aspects of site-locals which do not work as currently defined, from DNS to 
routing to applications using site-locals in referrals.  There have been 
some proposals on how to address some of these issues, such as updates to 
dynamic routing protocols, but others (like DNS) don't seem to have any 
agreed upon solutions in multi-sited configurations and, arguably in the 
case of DNS, single-sited configurations.  Without standards, or at least 
standards-track IDs, its hard to see how site-locals can be viewed as 
useful beyond a single-site configuration, with anything beyond that being 
experimental and/or proprietary.

Roy

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:18:22 -0400

Hi Roy,

> experimental and/or proprietary.

I have been meaning to write a draft on what I had to do to routing
and forwarding in order to get site-border functionality.  But, I don't
think that would address the bigger issues that have been discussed.
The routing and forwarding is complex, but it doesn't compare to some
of the other issues.

If anyone wants to hear about what it took to get RIPng to do site
border functionality, let me know and I will put something together.

Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:20:51 -0400

Rich,
      Just for my edification:

      1. Who else has site-local support?

      2. Can you describe the operational deployments?

      3. What applications?

Thanks,
Brian