Subject: RE: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:43:17 -0700

[SNAP]
I totally agree with the beginning of Tony's post.

> Tony Hain wrote:
> Until the WG agrees on the requirements, there is no
> possibility for the group to evaluate the utility of
> the current SL or other approaches.

I would go further than this and say that requirements alone are not
enough to evaluate what to do WRT this issue, as requirements could be
impossible to meet (as seen with multi6, for example). Requirements are
good but must be complemented by looking at _solutions_ as well and as
of today we don't have any solution to replace site-locals.

An imperfect solution is better than no solution and until we find a
better mouse trap it is harmful to deprecate the running code deployed
by multiple vendors that we currently have.

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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:27:23 +0200

Michel Py wrote:
...
> An imperfect solution is better than no solution 

Not if it's more harmful than the absence of a solution, which may
well be the case in this instance (although that is a matter of
judgement).

> and until we find a

Until we publish a revised addressing RFC, we haven't touched running 
code. It is just an internal decision inside the IETF. Personally, I'd
advise customers who believe they need local addresses to continue
using FEC0 until the addressing architecture is revised and products
catch up. 

   Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK