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

Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Deprecating Site Local Addresses"




Overall I support this document, but there are two things that have
me concerned.

1. The document talks about a replacement in section 2 and section 5.
While finding replacement for what folks perceived as being benefit
with site local addresses is useful (and perhaps even required),
the text in this draft seems to lock us down into replacement that
consist of defining some new address format.
I find this odd since the the WG has discussed partial replacement solutions
(for instance, draft-zill-ipv6wg-zone-prefixlen-00.txt) which do not involve
defining a new address format.

Does this document indeed intend to prevent the WG from working
on replacement solutions which do not define a new addressing format?
That would seem silly thus I suggest the text be reworked a bit to
make this more clear.

2. Section 2 talks of only two categories of issues but I
think there is a 3rd one: "moving the problem to the application space".

The text in section 2.1 talks of only one aspect of this (having to deal
with scope ids in the application).
draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt in section 3.7 has additional 
issues relating to:
         - Two-party client/server applications that exchange IP
            addresses at the application layer.
         - Multi-party applications that exchange IP addresses at the
            application layer.
Thus in particular the last two paragraphs in section 3.7 in 
draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt seems to be missing from this draft
and I think they need to be included to make sure important aspects of
the issues are not forgotten as we move forward.

   Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------