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

Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing



The three options are really the same.  We already have alternatives
to site-local addresses: 6to4 addresses based on PI or RFC1918
IPv4 addresses.  We didn't have these alternatives a few
years ago.  These aren't perfect, which is why we must develop
draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr, but they're enough that
fec0::/10 seems rather unnecessary in any current IPv6 deployment.
They particularly handle the requirements of those organisations that
want site-locals because that's what they had with IPv4 and they want
the same again.

So I support option A, deprecate site-locals independent of further
development of alternatives.  We have sufficiently good stopgap solutions.

I'm expecting, by the way, that the deprecation will leave fec0::/10
to be treated as global-scope unicast addresses, rather than making
fec0::/10 addresses cease to function altogether.

-zefram
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------