I second Tony's key point. SL's are just 1 form of IPv6 addresses with a
limited scope. As soon as operations folks put up firewall or router
filters, global addresses have the same scope limitations. I fail to see
how eliminating SL's makes the scoping problem any easier for applications.
Rich
At 03:43 PM 3/26/03 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> The WG chairs of the IPv6 WG did determine that there was
> consensus of those in the room to deprecate site-local
> addressing in IPv6. Like all consensus achieved at IETF
> meetings, this consensus will be checked on the list.
>
> BTW, I was at the meeting (Tony was not) and do not agree
> with his characterization of the discussion. The
> conversation did not focus on NAT and, IMO, was no more
> confused than typical WG discussions :-).
Unfortunately I could not be there, so I can only go on the reports I
have gotten, which show that at least some of the people in the room
felt this was an anti-NAT discussion. Some have even suggested that
there was no clear indication on what 'deprecating site-local' means. Is
it the address range, or the concept of scopes?
All the arguments seem to be targeting getting rid of the address range
because a few app developers can't figure out how to deal with scopes.
The range doesn't create the scope, the application of filtering does
that. Since there will be filtering going on anyway, are we supposed to
get rid of all addresses? Let's get real here. All SL amounts to is a
well-known route filter.
History shows people will use private address space for a variety of
reasons. Getting rid of a published range for that purpose will only
mean they use whatever random numbers they can find. This has also been
shown to create operational problems, so we need to give them the tool
they want to use in a way we can contain the fallout. Site local is
defined to do that job, and we do not have WG concensus on depricating
it.
Tony
>
> Margaret
>
> At 05:16 PM 3/25/2003 -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> >Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > > spaking of which, Noel, where's the obIPv6 whinge on how,
> now that
> > > they've deprecated site-local addresses, IPv6 has no redeeming
> > > features left?
> >
> >I don't know who 'they' is, but the WG has not deprecated site-local
> >addresses. As I understand it a completely confused
> discussion occurred
> >in SF which equated SL with NAT, but that does not equate to a WG
> >consensus to depricate something people are already using.
> >
> >Tony
>
>
------------------------------------
Richard A. Carlson e-mail:
RACarlson(_at_)anl(_dot_)gov
Network Research Section phone: (630) 252-7289
Argonne National Laboratory fax: (630) 252-4021
9700 Cass Ave. S.
Argonne, IL 60439