I also totally agree.

/jim
[In matters of style, swim with the currents....in matters of principle,
stand like a rock.  - Thomas Jefferson]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@;netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Brian E Carpenter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Proposal for site-local clean-up
> 
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > > 
> > >>
> > >> Current text:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Brian,
> > > 
> > >> >    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.
> > >>
> > >> Proposed new text:
> > >>
> > >>    Site-local addresses are designed to be used for 
> addressing inside of
> > >>    a site which is not connected to the Internet and 
> therefore does not
> > >>    need a global prefix.  They must not be used for a 
> site that is
> > >> connected
> > >>    to the Internet. Using site-local addresses, a subnet 
> ID may be up to
> > >>    54-bits long, but it is recommended to use at most 
> 16-bit subnet IDs,
> > >>    for convenience if the site is later connected to the 
> Internet using a
> > >>    global prefix.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would support this change.  However, I doubt that we will get 
> > > consensus to make this change before the addressing 
> architecture is 
> > > issued as an RFC.  I guess we'll see how things develop 
> in Atlanta.
> > > 
> > >> Alternatively, we could spend the next 5 years discussing the 
> > >> unnecessary complexities of using site-locals on connected sites.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is _exactly_ what I am hoping to avoid.
> > > 
> > > Let's limit site-locals to the well-understood case, and focus on 
> > > solving the real problems:
> > > 
> > >         - Getting IPv6 finalized and ready for wide-scale 
> deployment
> > >         - Multi-homing
> > >         - Renumbering
> > >         - Security model for shared IPv4/IPv6 networks
> > 
> > I agree with Brian and Margaret.
> 
> Also totally agree.
> 
> -- 
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to