From: Leif Johansson <leifj(_at_)it(_dot_)su(_dot_)se>
| is also functionally indistinguishable from the talk about IPv8 and the
| foolisness of those someone likes to call "legacy internet engineers."
That is a bit below the belt isn't it? It's one thing to step up to
the mike and claim to channel Keith Moore but to be accused of beeing
functionally equivalent to a troll is a different kettle of fish
At this point, what other purpose is there in repeating the discussion
in this list or by the appeal to the IESG? Unless the IETF repudiates
BCP 5, aren't we stuck site local addresses forever? Even if the IETF
did move RFC 1918 to "Historic" and publish a new BCP saying that the
evils of site locals are unnecessary in an IPv6 Internet, wouldn't we
still be stuck with site local addresses forever?
Why doesn't the advice given the IPv8 inventor apply in this case?
Why isn't the next step writing RFCs proving the evils or virues
of site local addresses instead of yet another series of ever more
irrelevant polemics for and against?
The statements about bogus queries of the DNS roots from RFC 1918
addresses or for PTR RRs for RFC 1918 addresses are examples of
irrelevant arguments. How would deprecating or outlawing IPv6 site
local addresses affect that problem now or ever? Why will the network
operators who leak such noise change anything if the IETF says they
shouldn't use IPv6 site local addresses? There are things that could be
done that would control that DNS noise problem, but those actions do
not include rehashing the evils and virtues of IPv6 site locals here.
15 years ago a defining difference between the IETF and the ISO was
that the IETF cared about what happens in practice and the ISO cared
about what happens in theory. As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site
local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com