RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

["Christian Huitema" <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG
list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point
regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that
session.

My notes record that 22 separate speakers took part to this debate, some
coming to the microphone several time. It is also pretty clear from my
notes that the consensus of the room is evolving as the discussion
progresses, and as arguments are being exchange. Yes, there was mention
of "site local as a license to NAT", but there where many other
arguments: leakage through IP, DNS or application; the lack of
practicality of several restrictive models for site locals; the
possibility or not to use other solutions for isolated sites; and the
complexity of handling scoped addresses in applications. At the end, the
tally shows 20 hands rising in support of site locals, 102 hands rising
for their elimination.

In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed debate,
opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was reached. I
believe that if you had been in the room you would feel closer to that
consensus.

-- Christian Huitema