I missed the SF IETF. Here's my vote:
"NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
- 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):
+ I do not approve of the procedure used here. If some
people want to replace a part of the architecture for
which we previously had had a rough consensus and working
code, then they should write up a draft and get
experience with implementations of their scheme before
trying to kill the reasonable scheme we have now. This
rush to kill site-local without a clear alternative plan
strikes me as madness.
+ Scoped addresses are a fundamental part of the IPv6
architecture. Most of the "issues" that so disturb some
people about them are there for link-local as well (or
aren't really issues). We need to deal with them, they
are solutions not problems. Sweeping them under the rug
won't make the real problems go away.
+ There appears to be an undercurrent here for removing many
of the features that make IPv6 so much better than IPv4:
scoped addresses, multiple addresses per node, and doing
other smart things with the address space. These were added
to solve many of the other problems with v4. I don't want to
see IPv6 be dumbed down until it is a solution to only one
of v4's problems.
--Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
