Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:14:54 -0800

Dan,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Now, explain me how you design that network (the plane)
>> with deprecating site-locals when global addresses are
>> present. Modern plane designs are multiple redundant
>> networks that carry data for almost all of the plane's
>> devices.

> Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Presumably you are supposed to get a global address for
> the rudder controller and hope that the FAA implements
> a no-renumbering-in-flight rule. The rest of us with
> less critical applications will probably just have to
> make do with unstable addresses.

Ridiculous, IMHO. That's the kind of thing scoped addresses were
invented in the first place.

> The thing that bothers me about this discussion is that
> it is starting to sound as if site-local addressing (and
> all the endless debate about scope and address selection
> rules) was just another sham like transparent renumbering.
> Until a few days ago site-local addresses (along with the
> scope baggage they entail) were a part of the IPv6 vision.

Allow me to correct you: site-local are part of the IPv6 vision until
further notice, as they have been since longer than I can remember
without looking up references.

I don't question the right of discussing it all over again, but a few
agitated members does not equate WG consensus, less a new document
without SLs. I am sure that Margaret will, as she did in the past, put
her personal views aside and act as chair in the direction that the WG
has previously reached consensus on, which is that site-local are indeed
part of the IPv6 vision and that there is absolutely no consensus
whatsoever to change this.

I wonder what Steeve Deering would have said about this? Sounds like a
Monica strike to me.

> Now suddenly they are a minor wart to be eliminated, and
> all roads seem to lead back to the situation where the
> stability (and cost) of your internal network is directly
> dependent on your ISP.  This in turn will almost certainly
> result in the introduction of IPv6 NAT and we will be right
> back where we started.

I share your concerns, and that would almost certainly trigger random
prefix hijacking that, when leaking, will be harder to spot than
announcements of FEC0::/10 in the defaultless table.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:29:32 -0500

>I wonder what Steeve Deering would have said about this? Sounds like a

What is a Monica strike?

I am pretty sure that Steve would have told us, again, that relative
addressing is an important part of any addressing scheme and that
we need to have some sort of relative addressing scheme in IPv6.

It is very unfortunate, though, that Steve is no longer here to help
us figure out how to do it -- I'm not being sarcastic, I'd much
prefer that he was here...

So, we will have to figure out what to do without him.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:00:02 -0500

> without looking up references.

site-locals are a beam that is blocking the IPv6 "vision".
either they will get swept aside, or IPv6 will run into a wall.

the fact that half-baked ideas have gotten this far without an understanding
of their consequences for applications, and without adequate justification
for their complexity, is NOT an excuse for perpetuating them.  

and if the best argument you can make in favor of SLs is to appeal to past 
mistakes, your case is very weak indeed.

Keith