Subject: Re: Address allocation schemes (Re: Naming and site-local)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:43:11 -0500

My biggest concern is that there is the assumption that there will ALWAYS
be more than enough IP numbers in IPv6. Wasn't that the thought when IPv4
was started?

Is NAT or a "NAT-like" option the best thing to use? No, but it WILL be
used. Whether it is due to some network engineer that doesn't understand
IPv6, a security bureacrat that "mandates" it in the name of security, or a
greedy ISP that sees a quick money for charging outlandish prices for extra
IPv6 numbers. Or worse yet, we realize that we need more numbers!

Though it isn't the best option, we can't remove or even prevent people
from using it. We need to give an option of how to use it effectively and
not breaking other things.

So, with that being said, I recommend that we have a couple of blocks of
varying sizes set aside for site-local.

Gary

Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>@sunroof.eng.sun.com on 11/12/2002
06:23:56 AM

Sent by:    [email-masked]

To:    Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
cc:    IPng <[email-masked]>

Subject:    Re: Address allocation schemes (Re:  Naming and site-local)

Hi Brian,

>So, why not simply deprecate SL for sites that have at least one
>global prefix? Or am I too simple minded?

If you are too simple minded, then I am right there with you.

My making this exact suggestion is what started the 500+ message
mail storm two weeks ago that has received so much attention on
other lists...

>That would then leave us with a couple of real problems to avoid NAT:
>multihoming, and easy renumbering.

Yes, exactly.  And, it may be easier to determine ways to solve
these problems in a flat address space than it will be to solve the
myriad problems created by the global use of site-locals.

Also, please note that although it has been suggested as an element
of some solutions, the global use of site-locals doesn't actually
solve either of these problems.

Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:30:56 +0100

Gary,

That is the slippery slope that got RFCs 1597 and 1631 published, and 
led us to a sea of troubles. 

Let's do better this time: just say no. Keep site locals for their
intended purpose, i.e. isolated sites.

   Brian