> At 05:16 PM 8/21/2003, Keith Moore wrote: > >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. > > "Worse than NAT". Coming from you that must be pretty bad.....
I said that because I did a quick mental comparison of restrictions and decided that a network using LLs was actually less functional than one using private addresses and 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? > > I see it another way. It seems to me that in cases where there are no > routers, globally assigned prefixes, DNS, servers, etc., if nodes can > discover each others IPv6 link-local addresses and use them for > communications, this is a good thing. It might be useful for them to do so in a pinch. That's a long way from saying that this is a practice that we should recommend or that apps in general should support. (of course if the app works fine with v6LL and no changes, there's no reason for the app to not use v6LL. what we need to avoid is to create an expectation that apps in general should be able to make use of v6LL) What we need to do is to figure out how to make such networks work well, rather than throwing the IPv6 LL bone at them and telling them to make do with it. > Note that I don't think it is trivial to do this and that > there are no issues with the transition between this environment and a > global environment. Nor do I think we should put IPv6 link-local address > in the global DNS. I don't think LLs belong in DNS at all. We should not endorse multi-faced DNS. > My other point was that IPv6 suffers from only adding value when everyone > else has it and there is global IPv6 connectivity. I disagree. I find IPv6 extremely valuable even though I rarely use it to connect to anyone else's machines. It would cost me hundreds of dollars more per month to get enough distinct IPv4 addresses to connect all of my machines directly to the net. > I think it is a good > thing if people find good uses for IPv6 with needing everyone else to have > it first. I agree - as long as the widespread use of IPv6 in this way does not do much harm to IPv6. My assertion is that widespread use of v6LL does cause harm. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
