[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: state-of-art SLs




Thanks, Erik.

Leonard, this statement represents the consensus of the WG, as
determined both at the face-to-face meeting in San Francisco and
on the mailing list in April.

We are currently working to carry out the action plan described
in this message, which does include the deprecation of site-local
addresses.  There is already a new version of the scoped addressing
architecture that removes site-local addressing, and work is
underway to produce the document that will officially deprecate
the site-local prefix.

Margaret


At 02:50 PM 7/28/2003 +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote:

>Here is a revelant email.
>I haven't seen a different statement on WG consensus on this topic.
>
>   Erik
>
>Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:11:04 -0700
>From: "Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman" <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>
>Subject: Consensus on Site-Local Addressing
>To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>
>Hi All,
>
>Well, that was fun!  :-)
>
>All told, there were over 200 responses to the consensus call on IPv6
>site-local addressing, approximately 3-to-1 in favor of deprecating IPv6
>site-local unicast addressing.  The final count (including the room and the
>mailing list) was:  155 YES, 56 NO (211 Total).
>
>There were also a significant number of the people on both sides of this
>issue that voiced (in their original responses, or in subsequent messages)
>a strong belief that we should investigate alternative mechanisms for local
>addressing and local access control.
>
>The chairs have read all of the messages on the list, and based on your
>considerable input, we have determined that the IPv6 WG does have rough
>consensus to deprecate the usage of IPv6 site-local unicast addressing AND
>to investigate alternative mechanisms for local addressing and local access
>control.
>
>In particular, the IPv6 WG will work to accomplish the following things in
>parallel:
>
>    (1) Publish an informational document that explains the issues
>        encountered with site-local addressing and our reasons
>        for deprecating IPv6 site-local unicast addresses.  This
>        document will officially deprecate site-local addressing.
>
>    (2) Remove site-local unicast addressing from the IPv6
>        scoped addressing architecture I-D, and publish the
>        parts of the document on which we do have consensus
>        (i.e., link local addresses, multicast, etc.).  This
>        will include a note that the IPv6 working group is
>        investigating other forms of local IPv6 addressing and
>        that the usage of any new forms of local addresses will be
>        documented elsewhere.
>
>    (3) Update the IPv6 addressing architecture to indicate that the
>        usage of the FECO::/10 prefix for site-local addressing is
>        deprecated.  To maintain backward compatibility with existing
>        implementations the prefix should be reserved and should not
>        be allocated for other purposes.
>
>    (4) Define and publish the requirements for a local addressing
>        mechanism to provide:
>          - Addresses for disconnected networks.
>          - Addresses for intermittently connected networks.
>          - Addresses that support merging of sites.
>          - Stable local addresses for changing ISPs without
>            disrupting local communication.
>        Once we have consensus on the requirements, the IPv6
>        WG will work on solutions for local addressing that
>        meet those requirements.
>
>    (5) Define and publish the requirements for a local access
>        control mechanism, then work on a solution that meets
>        those requirements.
>
>Each of these new work items will need to be added to the IPv6 WG charter
>and will go through the normal IETF document processes.  For (4) and (5) it
>is important to make the rest of the IETF community aware that the IPv6 WG
>is undertaking these tasks, so we will consider methods to invite wider
>review and discussion of these problems.
>
>IPv6 site-local addressing has been a contentious issue in the IPv6 WG for
>some time, and we are both glad to see the WG reach consensus on this
>issue.  This will allow us to complete and publish the IPv6 scoped
>addressing architecture document, an important part of the IPv6 specification.
>
>We hope that people on all sides of this issue will respect the rough
>consensus of the WG, and will work with us to achieve the goals outlined 
>above.
>  Thanks to everyone who expressed an opinion during this discussion.
>
>Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman
>IPv6 WG Chairs
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------