Subject: Re: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Atlanta IETF

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:22:52 +0200

Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Markku Savela wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > Even if IPv6 is enabled, the system administrator WILL not
> > give global
> > > addresses to the internal nodes anyways. If site locals are not
> > > available, they invent something else for the purpose.
> >
> > Access control lists in routers were in use for this years
> > before RFC 1597. Preventing unwanted access has never been a
> > valid argument for private addresses and never will be.
> 
> Let's try to be very crisp with the terms we are using. Private
> addresses are exactly about preventing unwanted access. I believe your
> intent was to say they are not an argument for ambiguous addresses.

Indeed, it is the ambiguity of RFC 1597/1918 addresses that
leads to most of their unpleasant effects (including the
temptation to translate them). And it is the ambiguity of SLs
as defined today that I find most objectionable. 

> 
> In the case of self controlled filters I would agree that the ambiguity
> of the address is of limited value. In the case where a third party is
> also responsible for some of that filtering, there is value in having
> the world know to also filter.

Which does not require ambiguity. Hence my belief that we should
clear our minds by agreeing to deprecate SLs as defined today, which
would get rid of ambiguous address space and leave us free to
define what we really need.

   Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------