Subject: Re: Why I support deprecating SLs

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:43:35 -0500 (EST)

Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> wrote:

|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|>
|>That may be what you want, but that is not what you have been saying.  You
|>are advocating taking away private address space.  Contrary to recent popular
|>(yet incomprehensible) thought these actions are not equivalent.  How about
|>you FIRST give people global addresses and THEN AFTER those people see that
|>those addresses have the properties that they need in order to use their
|>networks you can take away their private addresses?  I'm sure that most people
|>will willingly give up their private address space AFTER they have globals
|>with the same (or better) level of stability.
|>  
|>
|I was not aware that there was a problem getting global v6 addresses! 
|Please explain.
|Or perhaps you are thinking about global addresses with certain 
|properties

I think you know exactly what I am thinking about.

|(provider
|independence perhaps)? Please make the distinction for the sake of clarity.

Re-read what I wrote above.  Give them globals with the same (or better)
level of stability as their private addresses.

|BTW There is a flaw in your reasoning; people never give up any type of 
|addresses,
|private or global.

So how exactly do they hang onto non-portable global addresses they got from
an ISP when they switch to another IPS?

|Once products are shipping with support for v6 
|private addresses
|thats it. Private addresses won't go away if we let the cat out of the 
|bag now.

Really?  What happened to all those wonderful new applications that depend
on eliminating private address space?  You are saying that people will go
on using private address space even if they have suitable globals?  I guess
that implies that they didn't really want those new applications after all...

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 10:29:24 +0200

>level of stability as their private addresses.
So you are talking about  renumbering,  provider independence, etc. IMO 
this discussion
would benefit from a bit more precision. The heart of the problem as I 
see it is this:
site-locals are put forward as a solution to problems that very few 
people in the IETF
agree is enough of a problem to warrant fundamental change to the 
architecture.

       MVH leifj