Hi Margaret,
>
>Hiroki Ishibashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I am in favor of this document for site-local usages.
>>This document appropriately limits the use of site-local addresses,
>>and still leaves the room for future usage of them (which we don't know).
>
>This comment raises a basic question regarding what system design
>principles should be applied to the specification of IPv6.
Sorry for my careless comment.
>
>Site-local addressing is an interesting idea, and I think that it
>was worth exploring. But, at this point, we've been exploring it
>for several years, and we've found many problems and complexities
>that it causes (outlined in my document), and we haven't come up
>with a _single_ benefit of site-local addressing that wouldn't
>be better handled by a simpler mechanism. [If you think I'm wrong,
>please read my site-local impact document, and tell me what I'm
>missing.]
The decision of whether a substitution by a simpler mechanism
is better or not depends on reader's preference.
>
>I am also becoming increasingly certain that the concept of
>communication "scope" (for both unicast and multicast, actually)
>is really a routing concept, not an addressing concept, and that
>it is NOT best handled by the use of special-purpose "scoped"
>addresses. Instead, it would have been better to use only
>globally-unique, globally-routable addresses, and to build
>communication "scope" into the routing and access control
>policy of the network.
To be honest, I DO not have an obsession with site-local addresses if
an alternative solution is available.
The reasons for insisting simultaneous use of site-local and global
addresses are simply:
1) a user need to use site-local addresses to build
a provider independent IPv6 network now.
2) As I descried once on this mailing list, simultaneous
use of site-local addresses and global addresses is
realistic when a disconnected IPv6 network gets connected
to IPv6 Global Internet at least for its transition period.
For enterprise users, this scenario well suits their
needs. If "Provider Independent Global Address" had
been available, I would have used it. I just want to have
a better solution "right now" and tell my enterprise customers
that it is OK to start IPv6 for their intranet along with
a transition scenario to the IPv6 Internet.
3) I have several enterprise customers who like the idea of
setting their intranet servers within a site and assign
only site-local addresses to them with simple site boundary
setting.
Thank you,
Hiroki Ishibashi
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
