I was first happy to see this document coming. However, I'm a bit disappointed.
The section on the ambiguity of SL is good, still I'm not sure those
are the only problems with SL...
But, what is more worrisome is the notion that the ipng wg
has to find a replacement for SL:


"In its meeting in March 2003, the group reached a measure of agreement that these
issues were serious enough to warrant a replacement of site local
addresses in their original form"


From the current discussion, this is not at all clear that this is waht we have to do.
As Margaret articulated very clearly:


> There are a number of situations (disconnected sites,
> intermittently connected sites, etc.) where provider-allocated
> addressing is not a good method for address assignment.
>
> We need to figure out how these networks should be addressed.
> Our solution(s) may (or may not) require various properties of
> "local addressing":  a provider-independent address prefix,
> addresses that are defined to have limited routability,
> addresses with special autoconfiguration properties, etc.
>
> Margaret

Also worrisome is the implicit endorsement of the Hain/Templin and
Hinden/Haberman drafts as 'the' replacement solution:

"Obviously, site locals also have some benefits, without
which they would have been removed from the specification long ago.
The perceived benefits of site local are that they are simple,
stable, and private [Hain/Templin]. However, it appears that these
benefits can be also obtained with an alternative architecture, for
example [Hinden/Haberman], in which addresses are not ambiguous and
do not have a simple explicit scope."

Hinting that there is work currently underway to provide solutions
where SL was useful and PA does not work is ok.
Taking side in the current raging debate over those two drafts in not ok.

- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to