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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 28 March 2003 00:09 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 TAA27448; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:09:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yhcp-0001eC-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:21:39 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yhbu-0001Yu-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:20:42 -0500
Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27337 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:05:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16764 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:35 GMT
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA08319 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:34 GMT
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2S07Yc19715 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:34 GMT
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:34 +0000
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Message-ID: <20030328000734.GL19349@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA026A00C2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <200303271508.h2RF842Y017814@gungnir.fnal.gov> <20030327182201.6016865c.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3E838BCF.E4588B1A@iprg.nokia.com> <20030327185101.5dc02d39.moore@cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030327185101.5dc02d39.moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > I suspect that most people there, who voted for
> > the elimination of site-locals, would still be
> > favor of enabling the features that site-locals
> > were intended to offer.  Perhaps the majority
> > position could be paraphrased as "against site-local,
> > but sorry to see them go".
> 
> I agree.  I think there was a general understanding that we need to
> provide the capabilities that SLs were supposed to provide, but to do so
> in other ways.

Agree absolutely.

Erik made good points in SFO about desirable addressing properties for
customer networks (e.g. stable addressing).  That is one side of the issue.

The ipng list should be identifying the scenarios where networks require
addressing that would have otherwise have been supplied by site-locals,
and present viable alternatives.   For example, manets, intermittently
connected networks, and community networks with partial yet varied uplinks.
If these can be addressed (sic), then I think objections will diminuish.

As a side-note, a fifth SL option was presented "out of the blue" in SFO,
namely exclusive SL/global addressing (one or the other only), which,
because it was rather a "broken" idea, I think perhaps added to the room
sentiment that site-locals are broken (rightly or wrongly :)

Tim