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

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> Thu, 27 March 2003 05:18 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 AAA02971; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:18:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yPyA-0008OH-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:30:30 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yPtY-0008Eu-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:25:44 -0500
Received: from defiant.dfw.nostrum.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02737 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:10:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ssprunk (IDENT:sprunk@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defiant.dfw.nostrum.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id h2R5ClL07848; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:12:47 -0600
Message-ID: <00d801c2f41f$81e7a280$93b58742@ssprunk>
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, alh-ietf@tndh.net
Cc: The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA026A00C2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:12:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thus spake "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
> 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.

Issues most often move to the IETF list when a vocal minority object to a
declaration of consensus by the WG chairs.  If the WG chair would like to
reopen the debate, I'm sure everyone will move back there.

> 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.

I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of site-local addressing for the
purposes of having explicitly scoped addresses, so you are correct in one
sense.  What I am seeing is debate over private address space and NAT, which
many of us had expected site-locals to be useful for -- this email thread
(and the one on routing-discussion) belies any claims of consensus on that.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking