ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

2003-03-27 17:09:11
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

I suspect that most people there, who voted for
the elimination of site-locals, would still be
favor of enabling the features that site-locals
were intended to offer.  Perhaps the majority
position could be paraphrased as "against site-local,
but sorry to see them go".

I agree.  I think there was a general understanding that we need to
provide the capabilities that SLs were supposed to provide, but to do so
in other ways.

Agree absolutely.

Erik made good points in SFO about desirable addressing properties for
customer networks (e.g. stable addressing).  That is one side of the issue.

The ipng list should be identifying the scenarios where networks require
addressing that would have otherwise have been supplied by site-locals,
and present viable alternatives.   For example, manets, intermittently
connected networks, and community networks with partial yet varied uplinks.
If these can be addressed (sic), then I think objections will diminuish.

As a side-note, a fifth SL option was presented "out of the blue" in SFO,
namely exclusive SL/global addressing (one or the other only), which,
because it was rather a "broken" idea, I think perhaps added to the room
sentiment that site-locals are broken (rightly or wrongly :)

Tim



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>