From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
...
I don't have any problem with IETF/IANA saying "the addresses formerly
allocated to site-local will never be re-assigned". I do have
a problem with IETF giving any support to the notion that it's
reasonable to use site-local addresses.
In the real world among adults and outside the delusions of those
who think standards committees are Powerful and In Charge, having
the IETF/IANA say "the addresses formerly allocated to site-local
will never be re-assigned" is indistinguishable from having the
IETF/IANA say "here are some site-local addresses; have fun."
The talk about the evils of site local addresses (and NAT) and the errors
of those who want them may be accurate (I'm inclined to agree), but it
is also functionally indistinguishable from the talk about IPv8 and the
foolisness of those someone likes to call "legacy internet engineers."
Neither side is doing anything to help get IPv6 deployed, but just
the opposite. Partisans on either side who wanted to see IPv6 in use
by the end of the century would conceded the point just to get on to
something worth doing....well, unless they don't have any designs to
complete, protocols to implement, code to debug, applications to teach
about IPv6, IPv6 networks to get running, or anything else worth doing.
Don't the IESG and IAB have anything better to do than hearing appeals,
counter-appeals, and counter-counter-appeals from people with nothing
better to do than prove their analytic and political powers by arguing
this issue? Letting the IESG and IAB spend time on this issue is as
bad as letting them decide between IPv8 and IPv16.
Instead of playing childish lawyer games, why not write successors to
RFC 1627 and RFC 1597 or an equivalents to RFC 3027 and let the market
decide? The market will decide no matter what the IETF says or many
zillion times it says it.
I suppose the next pressing network standards issue the IETF and this
mailing list will consider is the wrongheaded evilness of phrases like
"IP network bandwidth" and whether to use "band-size" or "frequespan"
after "bandwidth" is declared anathema. (See
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-October/date.html )
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
P.S. I meant my question about ::FFFF:10.0.0.0/104 seriously. Are
those IPv6 site local addresses that are already available and
impossible to retract or even deprecate? If so, how can anyone
justify arguing (not to mention appealing) this issue?