Of course, a "Site Locals Considered Harmful" would also be useful (Keith, you
know it makes sense, and less effort than 100 emails to the list :)
I agree that such a document would be useful. I doubt, though, that it will prevent 100's of e-mails to the list -- I've just become resigned to spending ~45 minutes a day reading e-mail on the IPv6 list...
As part of deprecating site-local addressing, we agreed in the meeting that, in addition to deprecating site-local addressing in the addressing architecture and removing it from other places (scoped addressing architecture, address selection rules, etc.), a document would be written that would do two things:
- Explain why site-local addressing was deprecated
- Outline alternative means to address some of the
problems that could have been solved by
site-local addressing.A "site-locals considered harmful" document could be a part of this document or be referenced from it.
One of the problems of writing such a document is that "site-locals" are a moving target. We have (at least) five different proposals on the table for site-local address "usage" (only four of which are documented), and most of those proposals can be modified by one or more of the proposals to create "unique" site-local addresses.
I attempted to capture the issues associated with site-local addressing in my site-local impact draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt
This document specifically addresses the benefits and issues associated with the "full" site-local model currently documented in the scoped addressing architecture WG I-D. I did not consider other models, because at the time this document was written, the "full" model was the only documented model... A subset of these benefits and issues exists for each of the less complete site-local usage models.
Bob and I attempted to capture, in our IPv6 WG presentation, the benefits and issues associated with each of the three usage models we presented -- "limited", "exclusive" and "moderate". We focused on the differences between those three approaches -- mainly whether or not they require split DNS and whether or not they require address selection logic in applications that pass addresses to other nodes.
I don't believe that our presentation is on the minutes site yet, but it can be found at:
http://www.psg.com/~mrw/IPv6_Site_Local_Mar03.ppt
It might serve as useful input for a "considered harmful" document, or for an attempt to explain the decision to deprecate site locals.
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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
