Subject: RE: site-locals

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:58:24 +0300

Hi Margaret,

> >What is the amount of work to depreciate site locals - how 
> many RFCs need
> >to be updated? I'm not convinced that deprecating site 
> locals really solves
> >anything.
> 
> The work to keep, and finish, site-locals is much greater than
> the work to deprecate them.
> 
> To deprecate them, I think that the addressing architecture
> and the default address selection rules would be the only RFCs
> (both at PS) that we need to change.
> 
> To keep them, we need to document and resolve the issues that
> they cause, update all of the IPv6 routing protocols to
> document how site-boundaries are maintained, and document
> how address selection will be performed in several upper
> layer protocols (at least SCTP, SIP and FTP).  We might also
> need to provide guidance to non-IETF applications protocol
> developers and/or application developers for how to handle
> site-local addresses in non-IETF applications.  And, we'd need
> to specify split DNS.

Good point, I stand corrected on this point.  You might be interested
in this draft, the SCTP folks made a proposal how to handle IPv6
address scoping and SCTP - its only 3 pages, so its a quick read:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01.txt

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:33:02 +0200

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01.txt
Interesting reading. Note the following text:

    - the source address in the initial IPv6 packet (the packet
      carrying the INIT) MUST be an address belonging to the 
      specified destination zone.

Since zones are local to the node and not required to be stable over
time this means that the application using sctp must have some other
means of learning which zone belongs to which desired scope. This 
mechanism will probably have "system manager" on his/her business 
card. Speaking from experience (yes I do operate heavy machinery)
it is completely unrealistic to expect application managers to be
able to maintain this state at every node.

To me this sounds like a big gun pointing at my foot... no wait it
is pointing at my head! :-(

	leifj