Subject: RE: Let's abolish scope [Re: Unicast scope field (was: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing)]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:45:28 -0700

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think we'd be better off to simply forget
> about address scope.

At last, the real question.

Well, this could be both the best thing we could do for IPv6 and the
worst thing we could do for IPv6.

It would be the best thing we could do for IPv6 because for numerous
reasons it would simplify it and could allow for a faster deployment.

It would be the worst thing we could do for IPv6 because that would be a
tacit admission that we have failed to deliver on the promises for IPv6,
and are settling for IPv6 being IPv4 with more bits.

This could mean the death of IPv6 as enhancements in NATs are way
cheaper than building a native v6 internet, and as long as the v4
internet is not on the verge of collapse (which is going to take some
years at best) IPv6 would not take off.

There are three things that could make IPv6 take off:
1) A killer app, which we still have to see.

2) The v4 address space _really_ getting full, which will eventually
happen but we simply don't know when (as the time frame keeps being
pushed) and certainly not tomorrow morning.

3) IPv6 being a lot more powerful than IPv4.

> Well, here's my attempt at becoming flame bait :-)

This was a sound question to ask. However, what you propose is giving up
on item 3) above, and since there is nothing we can to rush the
invention of a hypothetical killer app it actually jeopardizes the
deployment of IPv6.

When time for 2) is around the corner, IPv6 will be deployed no matter
what, quick and dirty. Instead of settling for what we can deliver
today, why don't we use the remaining time to try to make it better?
Might not produce anything else, but at least we would have tried until
the last minute.

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: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:55:03 +0200

Michel,

I don't recall that we ever promised to support scoping of unicast
addresses. RFC 1752 refers to the scope field in multicast addresses,
which I certainly don't propose to abolish.

I don't see why the lack of explicit scope for IPv6 unicast is an
inhibitor. Satisfying the Hain/Templin requirements is necessary,
but that is orthogonal.

   Brian

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

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