Subject: Re: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:05:55 -0600 (CST)

Hi,

I was at the meeting in SF, and I was one of the minority that voted
to not deprecate site-local addresses.

Well, if I am allowed to, I am now changing my vote to:

	"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".

Perhaps folks might be interested to know why I originally voted
NO, and why I am now changing my vote.  If not, you can stop
reading now. :-)

Many people who have been voting NO have been including the list
of possible reasons that Bob and Margaret put in the message:

> Possible reasons include:
>
> 	- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
> 	- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently
> 		connected sites.
> 	- Site-locals should be retained for their access control
> 		benefits.
> 	- Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal
> 		connections to survive global prefix renumbering.
...

Aside from the access control benefits, these are some of reasons
why I originally voted NO.  These are important issues, and they
should be addressed.  I don't want to see them ignored.  I voted
NO not so much that I felt that Site-locals were the solution to
all these problems, but that I felt that Site-locals helped to keep
a spotlight on these issues.  My fear was that if we deprecated
Site-locals, then people would decide that we don't need to worry
about these issues any more.  Deprecating site-locals doesn't get
rid of these issues, it just removes one possible solution (and not
necessarily a good solution) to them.

So, there are issues and problems with Site-locals.  (If there weren't
we wouldn't even be having this discussion!)  After seeing all the
discussion on the list for the past week, I've come to the conclusion
that rather than Site-locals keeping a spotlight on these issues so
that they will get solved, they have become a stumbling block that
is delaying those issues from being solved.  The spotlight is on
Site-locals themselves, not the issues that need to be solved.

There are other approaches than Site-locals to addressing the above
problems.  I have a proposal that I'm working on writing up to directly
address the disconnected/intermittently connected site issue.  (And if
you solve that, you probably get the internal connections surviving
global prefix renumbering for free.)  But I don't have it written up
to a point where I could distribute it as an internet draft.  I've
verbally discussed it with a couple of people, but I have some more
issues that I need to work through to decide for myself whether or
not it is feasible.

So that's what I think we should do.  Deprecate Site-Locals as they
are defined today (which isn't much of a definition), and then focus
on solving these problems without the having the burden of being
forced to cram the solution into Site-local addresses.

		-David Borman, Wind River Systems

PS: I view claiming Site-Locals for access control benefits on par
    with "security through obscurity".  If you want access control,
    put in real access control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 07:08:11 -0500

Hi David,

>         "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".

Yes, you are allowed to change your opinion and we will
consider your new position in our consensus determination.

The primary way we reach consensus is by people changing
their opinions, over time, based on new information or
further understanding.  So, if you have changed your
mind (based on subsequent discussion, clarification of
the question or just further thought) please feel free to
update your previously expressed opinion.

If you do change your opinion, though, please observe
the following rules:

         - Send your change of opinion in this thread (using
                 the subject above).
         - Make your new opinion very clear (YES or NO).
         - State how you expressed your original opinion
                 (at the meeting, or on the list).
         - If you expressed your original opinion on the list,
                 please use the same e-mail address to send
                 your new opinion (or at least mention any
                 change).

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 10:08:48 -0800

Allison