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

RE: Let's abolish scope [Re: Unicast scope field (was: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing)]


> Brian E Carpenter
> My bottom line on this, I think, is that this version
> of scope has very limited use - it doesn't deal with the
> situations that my services colleagues see every day,
> and it is not something that middleware can make any use
> of. At most, it allows for some defaults in firewall
> rules and address selection rules, but those can be set
> up on well-known prefixes just as easily as on a scope
> value.

Although could agree with some of this, you are missing the point. This
would be if we had a PI solution, which we don't. In the lack of it, the
benefits of perverting the Hinden/Haberman draft into PI and do whatever
works for private addresses (such as hijacking) are _greatly_ superior
to using the Hinden/Haberman draft for private addresses and have no PI
and no multihoming solution.

No matter how infortunate, it is scope that could lesser the risk of
this happening, which is why making SLs unambiguous was possible, and
also what makes the Hinden/Haberman draft such a peril as the only
significant difference is that now these addresses have a global scope.

_IF_ we had a deployed solution that would bring the advantages of PI,
_then_ the Hinden/Haberman draft would be a no-brainer.

I am not opposed to abolishing scope, but we need to solve the PI issue
first. If it never crossed your mind, abolishing scope and slightly
revamping SLs would make their deprecation un-necessary as all the
problems associated with them would be gone.


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