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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
