Subject: RE: Your Appeal Regarding Site-Local Deprecation (Was: Consensus on Site-Local Addressing)

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 00:50:40 -0400

Michel,

> Bottom line is that nobody tells me what to do on my network 
> and certainly not the IETF.

I completely agree.  The IETF is in the business of defining standards
that may or may not be used in the real world.  For the effort of
defining the standard for SLs we are at an impasse and for many years,
thus we have decided to deprecate them for now until a proposal/plan
exists.  That is a prudent and logical action.

Users can do whatever they want and vendors too. 100% agree.  That is
not the issue or has anything to do with this decision in the IETF, as
standards body.

If I did not like the decision and believed it was important for users I
would tell them to ignore the IETF.  I have done that in a few very rare
cases and will do it again if necessary.  If you believe that you should
do the same and that's fine.

But we have made a decision and we should stand by it and move on here.
That is more imporant than SLs to this IETF at this time.  We cannot
continue to debate what has clear consensus and this one does.  It is
going to kill the IETF and a major large problem with this standards
body that has to be fixed and this discussion is prime example of the
problem.

> 
> 
> > I don't agree with you that customers will do as you say.
> 
> Maybe you should listen more to customers, because the have, 
> they are and they will.

I do daily and about IPv6.  They want to never deal with NAT again.
They also want real security which private address space does not give
them unless they have no links to the outside Internet anywhere within
their network.

I advise any user I speak with not to use them, except at their own
risk.  They will not just blindly use SLs I simply do not agree.  They
are well aware of our indecisive conclusions and their use within this
effort in the IETF if not directly then indirectly.

Until we define their use and scope within an IPv6 network there is no
logical use for them by any user.  Other than a false belief in securing
their network.  Once that belief is shown to be false (and it has by
many now) the reasons for private addresses become illogical and only
emotional.  And emotion is not a good plan for a business decision. Any
user that sees that will not decide in favor of emotion.

We should be talking about scoping of network link partitions not SLs
and once we have that understood address scoping besides LLs and Globals
will be clearer.  Why not have Org-Locals, or Dept-Locals. Etc?   The
reason is we do not technically understand their use or limitations
within the IPv6 architecture, there has been no running code at one bake
off to verify they do not break network connectivity for multisited
nodes or cause security faults as just two examples. With Globals and
LLs we have a clue.  We have no real clue for IPv6 only a few theories
and cannot get consensus on that so we deprecate them for now.

Private addresses in IPv4 are NOT the same as Private Addresses in IPv6.
In IPv6 it creates an address and network partition scoping abstraction
we simply have not completed our thought processes on and why I believe
it prudent technically to deprecate them for now. 

Can you point me to a public test bed (not private vendor) that has made
extensive use of SLs with IPv6 and verified their use as we have for
Globals and LLs in any IPv6 test bed in Asia, Europe, or North America?

Or if you know of stuff going on out of our intra-planetary system that
is fair too :--)

/jim

> Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bhaskar S <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 13:36:17 -0400

Hi,

I have seen some network boxes which use ethernet as the backplane. Say
for example using J4/P4 of CompactPCI. In this case one would like to
have a private address space for the backplane. So that any outsider
would not be able to see the internals of the boxes.

I am wondering how we would setup IP address for the backplane
interfaces of these boxes in the current scenario? 

Any suggestions?

-- 
Best Regards,

Bhaskar S.

978-858-2896 (o)

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 13:47:44 -0400

Hi Bhaskar,

In the case you have described, I think that link-local
addressing would work well.

Margaret

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:07:18 -0700 (PDT)

> interfaces of these boxes in the current scenario? 

Link locals wouldn't suffice?

	    Mike

---

From: Bhaskar S <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 15:00:58 -0400

Hi Mike,

Yes I feel you are correct. 

My understanding is that link-local address are not global addresses (pl
correct me if I am wrong). To use it I should not be connected to the
internet.

I'll need to block these addresses from getting into the internet.

-- 
Best Regards,

Bhaskar S.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 15:14:09 -0400

Hi Bhaskar,

Link-local addresses are not routed at all, they just work
on a single link.  So you won't need to do anything special
to block these addresses from getting onto the global
Internet, as no IP implementation should forward them.

Of course, if you are writing the IP implementation
yourself, you shouldn't forward them.

Margaret