Subject: RE: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:14:01 -0700

Jordi,

> Jordi wrote:
> I see your point, but my feeling is that we can only go to
> the last step (of the IETF process) IF it make sense (running
> code, and then it means no-brainer), that means that B is
> fine, but for the same reason, I can live with C (in theory,
> B and C are then the same solution) ;-).

I see your point too; however,

The difference between B and C is:
- with B, if the solution proves impossible to develop, we have a
failure.
- with C, if the solution proves possible to develop, we have wasted
time.

As many things, it's a matter of risk management, speed with a risk or
slowness without one. The reason I like C better is because I have the
feeling that if there was a no-brainer solution that would make B worth
the risk someone would have invented it a long time ago. If we were not
able to fix site-locals I wonder where the silver bullet to replace them
is.

As Tony pointed out, design engineers for large networks do not design
on vaporware. If I can't simulate a solution on a 20-router lab, it
ain't going in my network design and I stick with site-locals. Which
also means that once the design goes to large-scale deployment there is
no way back for at least 5 years, which in turn means that router vendor
"C" (yes, the one you are thinking about) is going to keep supporting
site-locals because they want to keep my business.

The question is, do we want to define standards or to we want to
encourage the development of proprietary standards? For the record, I
use ISL, EIGRP and HSRP; I won't have a problem using vendor "C"
site-locals.

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: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:32:36 +0200

On tisdag, aug 5, 2003, at 00:14 Europe/Stockholm, Michel Py wrote:

> If we were not
Solve the multi6 problem. Look at Geoffs presentations from the last 
IEPG. There is still time.

- - kurtis -