> From: Erik Nordmark, October 22, 2003 1:34 PM > To: Brian Haberman > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Deprecating Site Local Addresses" > > > Overall I support this document, but there are two things that have > me concerned. > > 1. The document talks about a replacement in section 2 and section 5. > While finding replacement for what folks perceived as being benefit > with site local addresses is useful (and perhaps even required), > the text in this draft seems to lock us down into replacement that > consist of defining some new address format. > I find this odd since the the WG has discussed partial replacement > solutions > (for instance, draft-zill-ipv6wg-zone-prefixlen-00.txt) which do not > involve > defining a new address format. > > Does this document indeed intend to prevent the WG from working > on replacement solutions which do not define a new addressing format? > That would seem silly thus I suggest the text be reworked a bit to > make this more clear.
The 'prefix length' draft is indeed independent of address formats, and provides an alternative to the use of site local addresses for security. I would agree to add a short paragraph describing how a prefix length option can be a helpful part of the solution. However, this option alone does not solve the other requirements, e.g. stable addresses that don't depend on out-of-site events. > 2. Section 2 talks of only two categories of issues but I > think there is a 3rd one: "moving the problem to the application space". > > The text in section 2.1 talks of only one aspect of this (having to deal > with scope ids in the application). > draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt in section 3.7 has additional > issues relating to: > - Two-party client/server applications that exchange IP > addresses at the application layer. > - Multi-party applications that exchange IP addresses at the > application layer. > Thus in particular the last two paragraphs in section 3.7 in > draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt seems to be missing from this draft > and I think they need to be included to make sure important aspects of > the issues are not forgotten as we move forward. OK. I think we can easily add a section with these two paragraphs and capture the idea. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
