Alain, I see your point but this is political now. Meaning several things. One some IMO have an agenda and strategy for the market with SLs or like addresses they are not going to let go here. Two some simply believe that they are important to the architecture. Three some believe link-locals and globals are enough (I am in this camp). Four some don't want to risk any NAT potential (I am also in this camp).
I think we have this known. 1. Consensus is SLs are not going to achieve consensus. 2. hinden draft works IMO? What don't you like about hinden draft "idea"? Doing what you ask will further delay this very important time-to-market decision in the IETF IPv6 WG. We do not have time now for analysis by paralysis. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Durand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:12 PM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing > > > > > Bob Hinden wrote: > > > [IPv6 working group chair hat on] > > > > I think the working group has been making good progress on replacing > > site-local addresses and wanted to get feed back from the working > > group on how we should move forward. This is not intended > to directly > > relate to the ongoing appeal of the working groups decision to > > deprecate the usage site-local addresses, but to get > feedback on how > > to proceed. I think it is very important that we move > forward on this > > issue and not rehash what has happened in the past. > > > > We now have a combined local addressing requirements document > > <draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt>, a specific > alternative > > to site-local addresses draft > > <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> (accepted as a working > > group item at the Vienna IETF), and will soon have a draft > describing > > why site-local addresses are being deprecated and doing the formal > > deprecation (authors identified and outline discussed at the Vienna > > IETF). Note that all of these documents will proceed through the > > normal working group and IETF processes of last calls and review. > > > > I think legitimate questions have been raised about how the working > > group should go about deprecating site-local addresses given their > > maturity in the current specifications and use in deployed > products. > > Specifically should they be deprecated independently from having an > > alternative solution available, at the same time an alternative is > > available, or sometime after an alternative is available. A forth > > alternative is to not replace site-local addresses in any > form, but I > > think the working group has made it clear that this is not a > > reasonable alternative. > > I have a real problem here. As I commented in Vienna and is > mentioned in > the minutes, > the entire process this wg is going through is wrong as it is > based on a > flawed logic. > > We had site local addresses. After lengthy debates, the wg > realized that > there were > a number of significant issues that outweighed the reported > benefits, so > there > is an attempt to deprecate them. Until now, fine. > > Now, some people convinced the wg that SL addresses were > having a role that is not fulfilled by provider aggregated > addresses. Fine again. > > Then, we have a 'requirement' document that pretend to > explain why we need 'local' addresses. If you read it > carefully, and as acknowledged by one > of its main > author in Vienna, almost all of those requirements (if not > all) would be > fulfilled > by provider independent addresses. Actually, there is nothing > in it that explain why we need 'local range' addresses. The > essence of those requirements is in the need for stable > addresses that are independent from ISPs. > > So using this document (I checked the new combined one, it is > the same > issue) > to justify introducing "local" addresses and doing so without > clearly understanding the impact of those "ranged" addresses > on the architecture and the current implementation is a > flawed process. In particular, we need to understand the > impact on address selection, and the layer violation that > would be created by coupling DNS views & > routing. > > IMHO, what need to happen is the following: > > -1. Make an in-depth study of the consequences of introducing > addresses with different ranges. > > -2. Realize that if the issue at stake here has more to do > with getting > addresses > than with their actual scope/range, something probably can be > done working with the registries. It might be a cheaper path > than changing the protocols. After all, IPv6 addresses > are plentiful, > we should have easy access to them! > > What to do with Site Local addresses in the meantime is a non > issue for me. > > - Alain. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
