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

RE: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing

"Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> wrote:

|The hinden draft has no impact because of "scoping" at all technically
|for implementation that was the point.  So the problem is far simpler
|and why it is good solution.
|What scoping issue do you see?

I didn't say I see a "scoping issue."  I see an issue with removing
site-locals without first providing a replacement that offers the same
(or greater) capabilities.  This is particularly important because there
is no clear agreement on what capabilities site-locals currently offer.
Many site-local detractors argue that site-locals don't provide any
"legitimate" capabilities at all, presumably because scoped addressing
is not itself "legitimate."  If site-locals are removed before we see
their replacement, I have every expectation that some folks will argue
(loudly) that the correct replacement is no replacement.  In the less
extreme case, it seems that subtle combinations of the random restrictions
being suggested for replacements may thwart one or more of the uses that
I expected for site-locals.  Finally, I'm concerned that any solution might
be seen as necessary only for the mythical "enterprise" and thus be cost-
prohibitive for the small business and home user.  We really need so see the
replacement first...

				Dan Lanciani

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Dan Lanciani [mailto:ipng-incoming@danlan.com] 
|> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:52 PM
|> To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
|> Subject: 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