Yes, nuke site locals.
Mike
Margaret Wasserman writes:
>
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
