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

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:52:34 -0800

YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing

randy

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Chen, Weijing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:17:47 -0600

YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing.

--
Weijing Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing

Hi All,

At the IPv6 WG meetings in SF, we reached consensus on several
points, all of which will be confirmed on the IPv6 mailing list.
One point in particular seems to be the source of discussion
on our list and elsewhere, so we will check this consensus on the
mailing list now.  Specifically, we would like to check the consensus
of the IPv6 WG regarding the deprecation of site-local addresses.

This email asks those that were NOT present at the Thursday IPv6
meeting in SF to express their opinions on a question that was
asked of the room.   If you expressed an opinion on this issue in
SF you can skip this message; in any case you MUST NOT respond to
this query.

By now, all of you have heard about the IPv6 meeting held on
Thursday, March 20th, where we discussed what to do about
IPv6 site-local addressing.

At the meeting, the chairs (Bob Hinden and Margaret Wasserman)
changed the agenda to include a joint presentation by the
chairs on various options for site-local usage.  There were
no objections to the agenda change.

The chairs' joint presentation can be found at:

http://www.psg.com/~mrw/IPv6_Site_Local_Mar03.ppt

After the chairs' joint presentation, there was over an hour of
lively discussion that covered many aspects of site-local
addressing.  Draft minutes of the discussion can be found at:

http://www.psg.com/~mrw/ipv6-wg-minutes-mar2003.txt

These minutes are a summary of the discussion, and they did
not capture every detail of the discussion.

During the discussion, it became clear that the "exclusive" model
proposed by the chairs had some fundamental flaws and was not
a viable option.  The WG was unwilling to choose between the three
options presented for site-local usage ("limited", "exclusive" or
"moderate"), believing that all three models represented a poor
cost vs. benefit trade-off.  And, as the discussion developed, it
became clear that there was growing support for deprecating
site-local addressing.

After the usual discussion regarding the phrasing and meaning
of the question (not all of which was captured in the minutes),
the chairs asked a yes/no question:  "Should we deprecate IPv6
site-local unicast addressing?"  There was clear consensus in the
room to deprecate site-local addressing.  So, now it is time to
check that consensus on the mailing list.

In order to get a good read for consensus on this point, PLEASE
adhere to the following rules:

NOTE:  DO NOT reply if you already expressed an opinion during
the IPv6 WG meeting in SF!

	- Make your response very clear (YES or NO).
        - Respond by Monday, April 7th, 2003 at 5pm EST.
        - Do NOT respond if you were physically present
		in SF and participated in the consensus
		call at that time (We are trusting you!).
        - Respond to this thread with the subject intact.
        - Respond only once.
	- Clearly identify yourself (in the From: line or
		inside your message).
	- Include the IPv6 WG mailing list in your response
		([email-masked]).
        - PLEASE do NOT start any discussion in this thread
                (Discussions are encouraged in other threads).

Any responses that do not adhere to these rules may not be counted.

The question is:

         Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing?

Valid responses are:

	"YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
	"NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing".

If you express an opinion not to deprecate site-local addressing, it
would be helpful if you would provide a reason.  Providing a reason
is completely optional, but it may help us to determine how to move
forward if the consensus to deprecate site-locals does not hold.
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.
	- Other (please specify).

Please, make your response _very_ clear (either YES or NO), or it will
not be counted.

Please Note:  DO NOT respond if you already participated in the
consensus call at the meeting in SF.  At the meeting, there were
102 people who raised their hands for YES (deprecate site-locals)
and 20 people who raised their hands for NO (do not deprecate
site-locals).  We will add the responses received on the mailing
list to the hands counted at the meeting, and use that information
to determine full WG consensus on this issue.

If you feel an urgent need to reply to something that someone sends
in response to this message, please do it in a SEPARATE THREAD with
a different subject line.  No discussion in this thread!

Please voice your opinion on this important issue.

Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman
IPv6 WG Chairs

---

From: Sean Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:28:27 -0800

Reasons that I see:

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing

Hi All,

The question is:

Valid responses are:

---

From: "BURDEN,KEN (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:59:00 -0500

NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing

Ken Burden

---

From: "FROELICH,STEVE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:50:44 -0800

- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
	Easy to get     
   No public registration, payment, customer/provider relationship, or 
   approval required.

 	- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently
 		connected sites.
 	- Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal
 		connections to survive global prefix renumbering.
	Stable     
   Both during ISP changes, and for intermittently connected networks. 

 	- Site-locals should be retained for their access control
 		benefits.
	Private      
   Well-known routing filter provides multiple levels of filtering to 
   ensure a single error does not expose the network to global access. 

i am in complete agreement with Tony.  Do not deprecate SL.

steve froelich

---

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:30:53 -0500

-----
Eric Williams
mailto:[email-masked]
PGP Public Key
http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc
Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF  7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789

---

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:02:52 -0800 (PST)

NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing.

tim

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:02:04 -0800

Yes but.

I understand why we want to remove ambiguity in addressing and make the
application writer's task simpler, but we need to have a solution for
zero-configuration of disconnected sites.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:20:50 -0800 (PST)

as long as we are voting...

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Rakesh Nair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:20:56 -0800

Benefits are less compared to the complications it introduces!!!

Rakesh Nair
www.netscreen.com

---

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:05:08 -0500 (EST)

Dan Lanciani
			ddl@danlan.*com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:05:24 -0800 (PST)

Site-locals are useful for disconnected sites, and for nodes on connected
sites which should never have global connectivity.

The cost:

Addresses may be ambiguous in certain cases.

Applications will have to choose between addresses when a interface has
multiple addresses.

It's unrealistic, however, to think that deprecating site-locals will
forestall these problems.  They will recur in other guises.  So let's
attack them now.                                -- George Mitchell

---

From: Andrew Draper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:44:12 -0800

... as presently defined.

The ambiguity of the current site-local addresses will impact applications.

We still need to solve the other problems (renumbering and disconnected
sites) but we should do this using an addressing format which can be made
transparent to applications.

Andy

---

From: "Fischer, Christine A (Chris)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:28:16 -0600

from: Chris Fischer
	Lucent Technologies

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:12:57 +0300

Hi all,

For what it's worth, my opinion is:

because:

 	- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
 	- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently
 		connected sites.
 	- Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal
 		connections to survive global prefix renumbering.
 	- Other: I think that there is a need for private address
  		space & provider independent address space.
		I would be happy to have a BCP on Site Locals,
		even if it listed reasons for not using them (or
		when they SHOULD/MUST NOT be used); I'd accept
		tighter controls on their usage, and so forth.

br,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:12:21 +0300

Teemu

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:44:28 +0200

Robert

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:58:51 -0500

Well stated.  I agree with this list.
/jim

> From: Bill Sommerfeld [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:28 PM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing 
> 
> 
> 	Does not provide any tangible security benefit.
> 	Provides false sense of security.
> 	Increases application complexity.
> 	Reduces application reliability.
> 	Requires too many compensating hacks to other protocols.
> 
>

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Apr 2003 22:51:47 +0200

>          Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing?

My answer is:

				Best regards,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand
# binary numbers, and those who don't.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.	! E-mail: [email-masked]
# Senior Systems Specialist     ! HTTP  : //www.autonomica.se/
# Autonomica AB, Stockholm 	! Voice : +46 8 - 615 85 72
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:06:59 +0200

Bert

---

From: "Brian Zill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:38:06 -0800

I missed the SF IETF.  Here's my vote:

- 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.
- Other (please specify):
	+ I do not approve of the procedure used here.  If some
        people want to replace a part of the architecture for
        which we previously had had a rough consensus and working
        code, then they should write up a draft and get
        experience with implementations of their scheme before
        trying to kill the reasonable scheme we have now.  This
        rush to kill site-local without a clear alternative plan
        strikes me as madness.
      + Scoped addresses are a fundamental part of the IPv6
        architecture.  Most of the "issues" that so disturb some
        people about them are there for link-local as well (or
        aren't really issues).  We need to deal with them, they
        are solutions not problems.  Sweeping them under the rug
        won't make the real problems go away.
      + There appears to be an undercurrent here for removing many
        of the features that make IPv6 so much better than IPv4:
        scoped addresses, multiple addresses per node, and doing
        other smart things with the address space.  These were added
        to solve many of the other problems with v4.  I don't want to
        see IPv6 be dumbed down until it is a solution to only one
        of v4's problems.

--Brian

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:05:49 -0800

Bill