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

Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing



B.  Captures the declared consensus and agreed work items.

<Short Reasoning>
Politically A. will deprecate site locals and strand their replacement in 
the WG forever -- the result will be prefix hijacking -- not good.

C. seems too ambitious given that a group of folks urgently feel that 
continued SL deployment will be harmful.


<Longer Reasoning>
The consensus reached by this WG is tenuous at best.  The essence of the 
discussions seems to pretty clearly combine the need to remove SLs and to 
introduce a "replacement".  A subset of the group just wants SLs gone. 
Another subset points out (correctly I think) that circumstances exist 
where a provider-based prefix won't work.

Folks, this is not rocket science.  IPv6 needs a known prefix that can be 
distinguished from provider-based addressing, and a mechanism to uniquely 
(or almost-uniquely) assign addresses out of this prefix.  I won't rehash 
all the reasons why -- check the list archives.  There really are only two 
down-sides -- someone could start routing these prefixes and someone could 
try to NAT them.  These need to be addressed in the appropriate documents 
(e.g., node requirements that prohibit address replacement in the header, 
etc.).  IMHO the dynamics that initially created IPv4 NAT are not present 
in IPv6, but that is another discussion.

There is real danger here;  I have already started to see mailing list 
discussion going something like:
Q. What address prefix do I use for this network before I get my provider 
prefix?
A1. Use FECO (Site Local).
A2. No, No, FECO has been outlawed by the IETF, just invent a prefix!

I have seen the 2002 mapping of RFC 1918 suggested.

"Private" space will appear -- I want a version that is thought out, that 
is well documented and understood, not a mish-mash of hijacked prefixes and 
IPv6'afied RFC1918 stuff.


--On Monday, August 04, 2003 11:06 -0700 Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com> 
wrote:

> B) Deprecate Site-Local addresses at the same time as a alternative
> solution is agreed to.  This would mean advancing both documents at the
> same time and making them include normative references to each other to
> insure that they were published at the same time.  This would result in
> the deprecation only happening if a consensus was reached on an
> alternative.



Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------