Subject: RE: A use for site local addresses?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:04:17 -0800

Mike,

At this point in time I would advise to consider site-local addresses
dead. Although I was among those who voted not to deprecate them, the
problem needed to be solved and we need to move on. You could use a 6to4
address with an RFC1918 address as the v4 address. For 10.0.0.0/8 this
translates into 2002:0A00::/24.
Why don't you request a /32 from RIPE anyway?

Michel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Saywell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 6:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A use for site local addresses?

Hi all,

I've only just joined the list - I'm mailing about the proposed
abandoning
of site locals because I'd like to use them!

Basically I'm involved in setting up a community wireless network in
Southampton, UK.  The wireless network itself is a fully routed mesh
using private (10.13/16) addresses, the long term goal is to get ISPs
to provide internet gateways which you connect to via a VPN, PPPoE or
some other method, over which you get a public address.

We'd like to start running v6 on the network alongside the 10.13
addresses
and site-locals seem like the most sensible choice since it's the only
allocation of v6 addresses which is going to be available for us to use
and which is large enough to accomodate a /48 per access point (of which
there could be hundreds).  Obviously the same internet access model
could
be used so you would get a public prefix over the PPPoE connection.

The site-local addresses would only be used for traffic contained within
the the wireless mesh, if some areas offered open internet access then
they could advertise an additional prefix routed from their own internet
connection, thus avoiding any NAT.

Well, that's my use and case for Site-Locals in a nut-shell!  I realise
that this type of deployment is quite a rare case, but I think it
represents a legitimate use of private addresses.

By the way, another option which would work very well in this type
of scenario is the geographical based addressing -
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-03.txt

Thanks,

Mike Saywell

Southampton Open Wireless Network
http://www.sown.org.uk

PhD Student, Dept ECS, Southampton UK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mike Saywell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:30:27 +0000

> translates into 2002:0A00::/24.

I could do, but (in my mind) that's worse than using a site-local address!
However if the final decision has been made I guess something like this
may be the best option, unless...

> Why don't you request a /32 from RIPE anyway?

I think I may try, I expect cost will be an issue though (i.e. it would
have to be free of charge).

Thanks for the advice,

Mike

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:44:26 +0000

> may be the best option, unless...

the IPv6 W.G does not do "final decisions", just wait 6 months and
site-locals are back on the table. consensus has to be reached on the
mailing list in any case.

even though site-locals are discouraged, I would be surprised
if the fec0::/10 bit-pattern will be re-allocated to something
else. i.e you can safely use them for your purpose. 

> have to be free of charge).

public addresses is the best choice.

/ot

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:42:42 +0100

> have to be free of charge).

Ask a ISP that is registered as LIR at RIPE.

- kurtis -