Keith, I agree with you. I am convinced the IETF cannot figure anything out that requires putting a stake in the ground because we debate for to many years now and to many won't compromise. I am not one of them I compromise all the time unless it is stupid (ergo like SL Addresses).
I came here and asked a simple question. Look what happened. In industry this would be a no brainer and most would take your view is my opinion. Don't use these for applications. But it has turned into another absurd avoidance of basic principles because folks have their heals dug in on for some reason. But as I keep saying outside of here there is a body and group of people who do and will continue to influence IPv6 deployment with their input. And many listen to them that deploy and build networks. Common sense guidelines like don't use LLs on command lines for general applications is going to be a no brainer to get support for and not like fighting NATs. The reason NAT got away with what it did is the users got blind sided and then IETF got sucked into building a special NAT working group (which I objected to at Munich) and look at the mess we have out there today. At least to me its a complete mess. No it will not be the same because the users, industry, non-IETF forums, Press, et al are all smarter. Everyone was busy doing .dot.com and the web and figured just keep it running (without security too) and that all crashed and people are now very aware of the loss of e2e and are awake to listen not just to the IETF and vendors but lots of input. One of those inputs is going to be LLs must be used with caution, but they are still a very advanced feature not found in IPv4. We shall see though. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:26 PM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience > > > I wish I could share your confidence in the wisdom of the > market. In my experience, the market does eventually learn > what works well and what doesn't, but for subtle things like > how addresses are used this can take years. And by the time > the market does learn, it's often too entrenched to change. > NAT is one example; email user agents that make it easy to > run executable attachments are another [*]. > > IETF can't stop vendors from doing harmful things. But we're > being irresponsible if we fail to discourage the harmful > things that we know about. > > Keith > > [*] The MIME standard even repeatedly warned about the > hazards of doing so, but that didn't stop unscrupulous mail > client vendors from deploying MUAs that > have become fertile breeding grounds for viruses. Why > nobody has sued them > for this is beyond me, because their negligence and refusal > to follow the standards has resulted in billions of dollars > of downtime (thus lost revenue) and support costs for > networks and end systems - even to those not using their > software.) > > > > Keith, > > > > That is not going to happen. The market will ignore such silliness. > > > > /jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:17 PM > > > To: Bob Hinden > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience > > > > > > > > > I strongly disagree that this practice adds value to IPv6. > > > IMHO it has the potential to do a great deal of harm. It is > > > even worse that NAT. > > > > > > Did we go to all of that trouble to deprecate SL only to find > > > that people will now insist that LLs are generally usable by apps? > > > > > > If we're going to make IPv6 even less predictable and less > > > functional than IPv4, why did we bother? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
