IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com> Mon, 31 March 2003 16:33 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13242; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:33:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 1902Nl-0005h9-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:43:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1902Mk-0005f5-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:42:34 -0500
Received: from mail.wrs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12982 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:26:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IDLEWYLDE.windriver.com ([147.11.233.8]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA20391; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030331112505.049afbb0@mail.windriver.com>
X-Sender: mrw@mail.windriver.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:26:12 -0500
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
Cc: "alh-ietf@tndh.net" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>, 'The IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <76481023.1048849856@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <058201c2f4bb$8f94a3a0$ee1a4104@eagleswings> <058201c2f4bb$8f94a3a0$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi John,

>But suppose we really do have enough address space (independent of routing 
>issues).  In that context, is site local just a shortcut to avoid dealing 
>with a more general problem?  Should we have a address allocation policy 
>that updates the policies of the 70s but ignores the intermediate "we are 
>running out" steps? Should I be able to go to an RIR and ask for unique 
>space for an isolated network, justify how much of it I need, and get it 
>-- with no promises that the addresses can be routed (and, presumably, 
>without pushing a wheelbarrow full of dollars/ euros/ yen/ won/ yuan/...)?

Yes, yes and yes.

Margaret

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email