Thomas Narten wrote:
Popping up a level, there's a more basic thing that I fail to
understand about this appeal. If the decision to deprecate was so
wrong and flawed, how does one explain that the community seems to
You are listening to a very limited subset of the 'community'. I have had
several questions from fortune 500 network managers as to 'what now?' They
plan to roll out IPv6 with addresses that are in either the FEC0 range
anyway, or are trusting that the proposed replacement FC00 will be finalized
From some of Tony's notes, one would think that process
ran amok in this case with a horrible end result that goes against the
will of the WG. But I don't see the community agreeing with that view.
E.g., see a recent note from the IPv6 chairs on the subject
(appended). From it, it is clear that there is strong community
support to deprecate SLs.
Take the biased questions in context, all choices started with 'Deprecate
Site-Local ...' You can get any answer you want as long as you get to frame
the question and later define what the answer means.
Thus, the idea that the consensus call was
fatally flawed, that the community doesn't support the decision and
that we consequently somehow need to reset the clock and pretend that
the last 6 months didn't happen and that we must start the entire
conversation over about what to do with SLs just doesn't make any
sense to me.
From: Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman <hinden(_at_)iprg(_dot_)nokia(_dot_)com>
Cc: hinden(_at_)iprg(_dot_)nokia(_dot_)com, Brian Haberman
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:55:33 -0700
Subject: Results of Poll
The results of the poll (appended below) started by the chairs in early
August to get more feed back from the working about how to deprecate
site-local are as follows:
Preference A 32 45%
Preference B 31 44%
Preference C 8 11%
Total Votes 71 100%
The raw votes are available at:
If we missed your preference or got it wrong, please let us know.
There are a few conclusions that can be seen in this poll.
Only 11% of the people responding wanted to defer the deprecation of
site-local until an alternative was deployed. 89% wanted to deprecate
prior to an alternative being standardized or at the same time an
alternative was standardized.
There was not a consensus about tieing the deprecation of site-local to
defining an alternative or do the deprecation before defining an
alternative. The working group is closely split on this. Even combing
preferences B & C (i.e., 55%) does not form a consensus.
Based on this, the chairs will plan to move the deprecation document and
the local addressing specification forward at approximately the
but will not do anything to officially tie them together.
Bob Hinden / Brian Haberman
IPv6 w.g. chairs
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:06:55 -0700
From: Bob Hinden <hinden(_at_)IPRG(_dot_)nokia(_dot_)com>
Subject: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing
[IPv6 working group chair hat on]
I think the working group has been making good progress on replacing
site-local addresses and wanted to get feed back from the
working group on
how we should move forward. This is not intended to directly relate to
the ongoing appeal of the working groups decision to deprecate the usage
site-local addresses, but to get feedback on how to proceed. I think it
is very important that we move forward on this issue and not rehash what
has happened in the past.
We now have a combined local addressing requirements document
<draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt>, a specific alternative to
site-local addresses draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt>
(accepted as a working group item at the Vienna IETF), and will
a draft describing why site-local addresses are being deprecated
the formal deprecation (authors identified and outline discussed at the
Vienna IETF). Note that all of these documents will proceed through the
normal working group and IETF processes of last calls and review.
I think legitimate questions have been raised about how the
should go about deprecating site-local addresses given their maturity in
the current specifications and use in deployed products. Specifically
should they be deprecated independently from having an alternative
solution available, at the same time an alternative is available, or
sometime after an alternative is available. A forth alternative
is to not
replace site-local addresses in any form, but I think the working group
has made it clear that this is not a reasonable alternative.
I would like to hear from the working group on how we should proceed. I
think the choices are:
A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an
solution available. This would mean that the working group should treat
the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents outlined above
independently from each other. If there was no consensus on an
alternative a replacement would not happen.
B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative
solution is agreed to. This would mean advancing both documents at the
same time and making them include normative references to each other to
insure that they were published at the same time. This would result in
the deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an
C) Deprecate Site-Local addresses after an alternative is defined,
standardized, and in operational practice. This would mean not
a deprecation document until there was operational evidence that the
alternative was working and shown to be an improvement over Site-Local
Note: In the above choices "Deprecate Site-Local addresses" means
publishing an RFC that does the formal deprecation.
Please respond to the list with your preference, or if there is an
alternative approach that is an improvement from the ones I outlined. I
hope that many of you will respond.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6