NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing
- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
Easy to get
No public registration, payment, customer/provider relationship, or
approval required.
- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently
connected sites.
- Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal
connections to survive global prefix renumbering.
Stable
Both during ISP changes, and for intermittently connected networks.
- Site-locals should be retained for their access control
benefits.
Private
Well-known routing filter provides multiple levels of filtering to
ensure a single error does not expose the network to global access.
Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret
> Wasserman
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> At the IPv6 WG meetings in SF, we reached consensus on
> several points, all of which will be confirmed on the IPv6
> mailing list. One point in particular seems to be the source
> of discussion on our list and elsewhere, so we will check
> this consensus on the mailing list now. Specifically, we
> would like to check the consensus of the IPv6 WG regarding
> the deprecation of site-local addresses.
>
> This email asks those that were NOT present at the Thursday
> IPv6 meeting in SF to express their opinions on a question that was
> asked of the room. If you expressed an opinion on this issue in
> SF you can skip this message; in any case you MUST NOT
> respond to this query.
>
> By now, all of you have heard about the IPv6 meeting held on
> Thursday, March 20th, where we discussed what to do about
> IPv6 site-local addressing.
>
> At the meeting, the chairs (Bob Hinden and Margaret
> Wasserman) changed the agenda to include a joint presentation
> by the chairs on various options for site-local usage. There
> were no objections to the agenda change.
>
> The chairs' joint presentation can be found at:
>
> http://www.psg.com/~mrw/IPv6_Site_Local_Mar03.ppt
>
> After the chairs' joint presentation, there was over an hour
> of lively discussion that covered many aspects of site-local
> addressing. Draft minutes of the discussion can be found at:
>
> http://www.psg.com/~mrw/ipv6-wg-minutes-mar2003.txt
>
> These minutes are a summary of the discussion, and they did
> not capture every detail of the discussion.
>
> During the discussion, it became clear that the "exclusive"
> model proposed by the chairs had some fundamental flaws and
> was not a viable option. The WG was unwilling to choose
> between the three options presented for site-local usage
> ("limited", "exclusive" or "moderate"), believing that all
> three models represented a poor cost vs. benefit trade-off.
> And, as the discussion developed, it became clear that there
> was growing support for deprecating site-local addressing.
>
> After the usual discussion regarding the phrasing and meaning
> of the question (not all of which was captured in the
> minutes), the chairs asked a yes/no question: "Should we
> deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing?" There was
> clear consensus in the room to deprecate site-local
> addressing. So, now it is time to check that consensus on
> the mailing list.
>
> In order to get a good read for consensus on this point,
> PLEASE adhere to the following rules:
>
> NOTE: DO NOT reply if you already expressed an opinion
> during the IPv6 WG meeting in SF!
>
> - Make your response very clear (YES or NO).
> - Respond by Monday, April 7th, 2003 at 5pm EST.
> - Do NOT respond if you were physically present
> in SF and participated in the consensus
> call at that time (We are trusting you!).
> - Respond to this thread with the subject intact.
> - Respond only once.
> - Clearly identify yourself (in the From: line or
> inside your message).
> - Include the IPv6 WG mailing list in your response
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> - PLEASE do NOT start any discussion in this thread
> (Discussions are encouraged in other threads).
>
> Any responses that do not adhere to these rules may not be counted.
>
> The question is:
>
> Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing?
>
> Valid responses are:
>
> "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
> "NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
>
> If you express an opinion not to deprecate site-local
> addressing, it would be helpful if you would provide a
> reason. Providing a reason is completely optional, but it
> may help us to determine how to move forward if the consensus
> to deprecate site-locals does not hold. Possible reasons include:
>
> - Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
> - Site-locals should be retained for intermittently
> connected sites.
> - Site-locals should be retained for their access control
> benefits.
> - Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal
> connections to survive global prefix renumbering.
> - Other (please specify).
>
> Please, make your response _very_ clear (either YES or NO),
> or it will not be counted.
>
> Please Note: DO NOT respond if you already participated in
> the consensus call at the meeting in SF. At the meeting,
> there were 102 people who raised their hands for YES
> (deprecate site-locals) and 20 people who raised their hands
> for NO (do not deprecate site-locals). We will add the
> responses received on the mailing list to the hands counted
> at the meeting, and use that information to determine full WG
> consensus on this issue.
>
> If you feel an urgent need to reply to something that someone
> sends in response to this message, please do it in a SEPARATE
> THREAD with a different subject line. No discussion in this thread!
>
> Please voice your opinion on this important issue.
>
> Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman
> IPv6 WG Chairs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
