Subject: Re: alternatives to site-locals? (Re: CONSENSUS CALL: DeprecatingSite-Local Addressing)

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:38:45 -0500 (EST)

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

|I think we should clear the desktop first, by getting rid of ambiguous
|site-local address space, and then discuss possible new solutions.

Could you explain why you think this is the correct order?  To me it seems
completely wrong.  Eliminating site-locals will probably require changes in
much the same areas that any new solution will require.  Why edit everything
twice?  Once site-locals are gone there will be very little incentive for
those who dismiss their uses to look at alternate solutions since they do
not recognize the associated problems as problems.

				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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:49:01 +0200

Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Could you explain why you think this is the correct order?  

Because I can't see any other way of getting the WG out of
its perpetual discussion loop on this topic.

> To me it seems
> twice?  

Who said that? We have just shipped the addressing architecture
(with ambiguous SLs) to the RFC Editor. We know we have to make a
new version. If we can agree to deprecate ambiguous SLs, we can then
invent a non-ambiguous replacement for the next version of the
addressing architecture.

> Once site-locals are gone there will be very little incentive for

I think you are misreading a lot of the "deprecate" votes,
including mine. We certainly aren't done even if we reach consensus
on deprecation.

   Brian