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

Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing



|C) Deprecate Site-Local addresses after an alternative is defined, 
|standardized, and in operational practice.  This would mean not advancing a 
|deprecation document until there was operational evidence that the 
|alternative was working and shown to be an improvement over Site-Local 
|addresses.
|
|Note:  In the above choices "Deprecate Site-Local addresses" means 
|publishing an RFC that does the formal deprecation.
|
|Please respond to the list with your preference, or if there is an 
|alternative approach that is an improvement from the ones I outlined.  I 
|hope that many of you will respond.

I vote for C.  Given the disagreement on the "legitimate" uses of site local
addresses (and scoped addressing in general) it will be difficult to be sure
that a replacement actually solves all the problems that everyone concerned
expected site-locals to solve, and does so in a way that is not prohibitively
difficult/expensive to deploy.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*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
--------------------------------------------------------------------