On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> In my opinion, there are three possible choices here:
There are two others:
(0) Limit the scope of the IPv6 WG's problem, by
forbidding the use of site-local addresses
on globally-connected networks in the
scoped addressing architecture and clarifying
it in the revised addrarch document. This would
not preclude work in this area by other
groups within the IETF/IRTF, and we could
remove the restriction when the implications
are fully understood.
> (1) Limit the scope of the IPv6 WG's problem, by
> forbidding the use of site-local addresses
> on globally-connected networks in the
> scoped addressing architecture. This would
> not preclude work in this area by other
> groups within the IETF/IRTF, and we could
> remove the restriction when the implications
> are fully understood.
>
> (2) Develop a complete solution for scoped unicast
> addressing within the IPv6 WG. This would
> include solving the problems they cause for
> all protocols/layers.
>
> (3) Define an IP-level solution for scoped addressing
> (similar to what is currently in the scoped
> addressing architecture), and consider all
> of the implications of that architecture on
> other protocols/layers to be someone else's
> problem.
(4) As 0) and 1) but kill all references to SL in
addrarch-v3
> The first choice is both responsible and doable.
But it gives a totally wrong picture to a reader reading a revised edition
of addrarch. So it's unclear. 0) is clear, responsible and doable.
4) is too rash action for now, I believe.
> I have deep concerns about the second choice, along two lines:
> (1) I think it is important that we stabilize and complete IPv6
> quickly, as folks are widely implementing and deploying it, and
> (2) I don't know that we have the expertise (in the IPv6 WG or
> anywhere in the IETF, without further research) to solve these
> problems.
>
> And, in my opinion, the third choice (which is what we seem to
> be doing so far) is blatantly irresponsible.
>
> Are there people who want to argue for choices #2 and/or #3?
> Or are there other choices that I've left out?
Yes.
I strongly urge for 0). Some wording changes are required in 2.5.6
second-last paragraph, and we may need to kill the last paragraph.
I'm not even sure if we could get addrarch to draft standard, have folks
implemented these two:
--8<--
Routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or
destination addresses outside of the site.
--8<--
None of the implementations I use certainly haven't, and this has been
around for a time now, even since RFC1884..
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
