Gary,

That is the slippery slope that got RFCs 1597 and 1631 published, and 
led us to a sea of troubles. 

Let's do better this time: just say no. Keep site locals for their
intended purpose, i.e. isolated sites.

   Brian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> My biggest concern is that there is the assumption that there will ALWAYS
> be more than enough IP numbers in IPv6. Wasn't that the thought when IPv4
> was started?
> 
> Is NAT or a "NAT-like" option the best thing to use? No, but it WILL be
> used. Whether it is due to some network engineer that doesn't understand
> IPv6, a security bureacrat that "mandates" it in the name of security, or a
> greedy ISP that sees a quick money for charging outlandish prices for extra
> IPv6 numbers. Or worse yet, we realize that we need more numbers!
> 
> Though it isn't the best option, we can't remove or even prevent people
> from using it. We need to give an option of how to use it effectively and
> not breaking other things.
> 
> So, with that being said, I recommend that we have a couple of blocks of
> varying sizes set aside for site-local.
> 
> Gary
> 
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@sunroof.eng.sun.com on 11/12/2002
> 06:23:56 AM
> 
> Sent by:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> To:    Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:    IPng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject:    Re: Address allocation schemes (Re:  Naming and site-local)
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> >So, why not simply deprecate SL for sites that have at least one
> >global prefix? Or am I too simple minded?
> 
> If you are too simple minded, then I am right there with you.
> 
> My making this exact suggestion is what started the 500+ message
> mail storm two weeks ago that has received so much attention on
> other lists...
> 
> >That would then leave us with a couple of real problems to avoid NAT:
> >multihoming, and easy renumbering.
> 
> Yes, exactly.  And, it may be easier to determine ways to solve
> these problems in a flat address space than it will be to solve the
> myriad problems created by the global use of site-locals.
> 
> Also, please note that although it has been suggested as an element
> of some solutions, the global use of site-locals doesn't actually
> solve either of these problems.
> 
> Margaret
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to