Subject: RE: Summary Re: Proposal for site-local clean-up

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:01:25 -0500

How often do you think that people really set-up a private,
disconnected network and later connect it to the Internet?

Do you think this will be a common real-life case, or is this
more of a theoretical edge case?

Margaret

At 04:51 PM 11/13/02, Brian Zill wrote:
>Brian Carpenter writes:
> > 3. Can't stop NAT's anyway. (several people).
> > That may sadly be true, but we shouldn't publish
> > specs that seem to encourage them.
>
>I would argue the opposite -- *preventing* site-locals and globals from
>co-existing encourages NAT.  We're better off today than we would be
>with that restriction.
>
>Case study: A site has a disconnected network happily using site-locals.
>These addresses get embedded in all sorts of configuration scripts, etc.
>Then they decide to connect to the Internet and get a global prefix from
>their ISP.
>
>Today: They just advertise the new global prefix alongside the
>site-local prefix, all their hard-coded addresses continue to work.
>
>With restriction on mixing site-local and global addresses: They need to
>renumber their network and find all the places addresses have been
>specified in config files and the like.  Or they could just use a v6
>NAT.  Which do you think will happen?
>
>--Brian
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:20:42 -0800

> more of a theoretical edge case?

Said real company needed to get IPv6 running internally before their
service provider was offering service & therefore address space. This
will continue to be the case in NA until the attitude at nanog changes.

Tony

> >Case study: A site has a disconnected network happily using 
> >site-locals. These addresses get embedded in all sorts of 
> configuration 
> >scripts, etc. Then they decide to connect to the Internet and get a 
> >global prefix from their ISP.
> >
> >With restriction on mixing site-local and global addresses: 
> They need 
> >to renumber their network and find all the places addresses 
> have been

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:30:55 -0800

> more of a theoretical edge case?

Here again is the case for mobile ad-hoc networks. By definition,
MANETs are designed to operate in infrastructureless environments.
One case might be a string of vehicles on a remote highway that
still find useful benefit in chit-chatting with one another even
though none have access to the global Internet. But, when the
string approaches a population center, hot-spot access point,
etc. all should be able to share the global Internet access as
long as one or more have direct connectivity.

IPv6 is about anticipating and designing for *future* use cases
as well as the existing paradigms of today, right? I'm *not*
suggesting that we drop back into "research-mode" - only that
we keep our sights set forward while we address the existing
deployment scenarios we have today.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:49:08 +0000

> deployment scenarios we have today.

So what's the nemo WG view of addressing for mobile networks, for
communications within and between such networks, accounting for 
intermittent connectivity.

Tim

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:46:44 -0500

> will continue to be the case in NA until the attitude at nanog changes.

have to agree here - this is a realistic case.  ideally it would
be handled by normal renumbering mechanisms, if we knew what those were.

Keith

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:21:27 +0100

> will continue to be the case in NA until the attitude at nanog changes.

My home network runs 6to4. I didn't need to talk to anyone.