We should not have to touch addr arch if we just want to control SLs and not Revoke them.
Just to leave addr arch ALONE I vote for "control" now even though I want revoke and think SLs are a curse to IPv6 in the future. Lets control it. We have to leave addr arch alone unless there is no other alternative. Margaret's paradigm presents us that alternative and I think it will work. There is no perfect world there will NEVER be a perfect protocol. I recall one Ipng directorate member when we sat there looking at all the proposals. One in particular kept saying which one has less "warts" (a very bright guy named Greg :--)). I have taken those comments to heart in all IETF work as much as be liberal (I really just hate that word :--)) in what you receive but conservative in what you send. IMO SLs are an IPv6 wart. Lets not cut off the hand where the wart is but rather kiss it and make it beautiful like in those children stories. The problem is the wart is so ugly no one wants to get close and best we can do is put bandaid on it for now. That is what Margarets proposal does and it appears to me there is consensus to move forward with that idea. At least my read of these far to many emails but necessary I guess. /jim /jim [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@;netcore.fi] > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:53 PM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: Hesham Soliman (EAB); 'Keith Moore'; > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Steven Blake'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >2.5.6 Local-Use IPv6 Unicast Addresses > > > > > > Routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or > > > destination addresses outside of the site. > > > > > >This conflicts with the "treat as globals" stance. > > > > Not really. If we define that site-local unicast addresses > can only > > be used on non-globally-connected sites, there won't be any site- > > border routers that need to worry about this restriction. > > > > But, that doesn't make the restriction false. Site-local addresses > > should never be forward outside of a site. > > And what about: > > Site-local addresses are designed to be used for > addressing inside of > a site without the need for a global prefix. Although a subnet ID > may be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that globally-connected > sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global > prefixes. > > > I think if we want to go down the road discussed in this > thread, I believe > some (relatively minor) changes in addrarch could clarify many things. > > -- > Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, > Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" > Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
