Tony, I support that. We do need to hear from the network managers I agree. But I do think we need controls pretty soon.
/jim [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@;tndh.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:37 PM > To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > Bound, Jim wrote: > > So if I read your view. Your saying. Control them but do > > not revoke them? > > > > The question is can we control them then right? > > > > I was trying to say; comment on known problem areas, but > nothing more. This is because we can't control their use, and > even if we could, we might be cutting of a valuable service > down the road. When we know there is a problem, like the use > of SL with the current single scope DNS servers, we should > point out the reasons developers should think twice before > going there. > > > But if we can't figure it out or agree then that could be revoke? > > No. There are deployment models where SL is what the network > manager wants, but those who are complaining on this list are > not working in networks with those models. Before any > discussion about removing them can take place, the people > that want to use them need a voice. > > Tony > > > > > I would hope we can control and not revoke. > > > > But as you know I don't believe they should have ever been > > permitted in the first place in IPv6. Site-Locals and 1918 > > are BOGUS that is not how to control what they wanted to do > > in the first place. > > > > /jim > > [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@;tndh.net] > > > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:47 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > > > > > > > I have a basic problem with this thread. We have a few people > > > discussing fundamental changes in close to a vacuum. At best the > > > result of this discussion should be a separate BCP, but > before that > > > happens operators of networks that actually use 1918 > space need to > > > be engaged to find out their requirements. > > > > > > The whole idea that SL should be revoked if a global is > available is > > > bogus. It is certainly reasonable for the manufacturer of light > > > switches to only support SL/LL rather than potentially multiple > > > global prefixes. There is no reason for those devices to interact > > > across a scope boundary, so the peer nodes that may also > need global > > > access MUST keep their SL to interact in the limited scope. > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 PROTECTED] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
