"NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing". - Site-locals should be retained for intermittently connected sites. - Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:38 PM 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
