Subject: Re: Why I support deprecating SLs

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:59:28 -0500 (EST)

Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> wrote:

|So, it is certainly safe to say that we don't have _any_
|proposal on the table for the usage of site-local addresses
|that currently has WG consensus.  So, what is it that you
|think we are "taking away"?
|
|The proposal is to deprecate a prefix in the addressing
|architecture for which we have found no suitable use.

My mistake.  I thought we were voting on something more meaningful, i.e.,
site-locals themselves.  Now I understand that site-locals do not exist
as such and we were just voting on the deprecation of the prefix itself.
This actually makes it all the more amazing that anyone would claim that
the mere existence of that prefix in an undeprecated state is the stumbling
block preventing us from solving the routing problem that has been around
for a decade or so.  As I'm sure the prefix will indeed be deprecated, I
look forward to seeing serious discussions of those routing solutions very
soon.

			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: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 14:28:26 -0700

> look forward to seeing serious discussions of those routing solutions very

Clearly site-locals have been used as a crutch because the hard problems 
haven't been solved.  Through my vote I am saying that we should go 
solve the hard problems.  We have a working network for now.

Eliot