ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...

2003-03-26 13:23:56
Keith Moore wrote:
your understanding is incorrect.  the question posed at the 
meeting was 
quite clear.  and yes, the plurality of opinions in the room was so 
overwhelmingly in favor of deprecating site local (even if it's 
something people are already using) that it is inconceivable 
that this 
is not indicative of WG consensus.

This has not been discussed on the WG mail list, so despite your
apparent limited ability to conceive of valid objections, they do exist.



site local is broken.  it creates far more problems than it 
solves, and 
it cannot be fixed.  it's just taken people awhile to realize it.

Trying to use SL for routing between sites is what is broken. The space
identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking whatever
addresses they could find in documentation. SL was set aside because
there are people that either want unrouted space, or don't want to
continuously pay a registry to use a disconnected network. It is far
cheaper to train an app developer (though there may be an exception or
two) to deal with it than it is to fix all the ad-hoc solutions that
people will come up with to replace SL.


of course, the SL prefix will not be re-allocated to other purposes, 
and nothing stops those who are already using SL from 
continuing to do 
so.  but the idea that hosts, apps, routers, DNS, etc. should 
special-case site-local addresses is dead.  and good riddance.

Again, this is not a trival issue and there has been no discussion of it
on the WG mail list. The decision has NOT been made.

Tony