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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:12:34 -0500

NO - Do NOT Deprecate Site-Local Addressing.

There are reason to use site-locals, and reason NOT to use them. But
"FORBIDDING" people will only alienate them and lead them to find ways to
do it anyway.

Perfect example, when (or should I say IF) my home ISP goes to IPv6, they
charge per IP. Always have, and always will. Sure, they will gladly give me
a range of IPs, as well as gladly charge me as if each were a PC. Also,
when I get tired of putting up with the abuse from this particular ISP and
decide to choose another ISP to abuse me, I will still have the same issue.

Does having Site-locals cause problems? Sure. Can these problems be
mitigated? Yes. Does deprecating site-locals solve the problem? Yes and no.
In the short term it may. But those that are determined to have themwill
find a way around. It is better to face an enemy that we know and can
control than to unleash a beast that we may not be able to contain. We must
NOT forget that the end user is the one that will have no input into this,
but will be bound by the decision.

I shall get off my soap-box.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:49:49 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:

> "FORBIDDING" people will only alienate them and lead them to 
> find ways to do it anyway.
> 
> Perfect example, when (or should I say IF) my home ISP goes 
> to IPv6, they charge per IP. Always have, and always will.
> Sure, they will gladly give me a range of IPs, as well as
> gladly charge me as if each were a PC. Also,
> when I get tired of putting up with the abuse from this 
> particular ISP and decide to choose another ISP to abuse me,
> I will still have the same issue.

Very good example that you don't get it at all.
ISP's should be charging for traffic, not for IP's.
They pay for traffic to their upstreams not for IP addresses.
IP addresses only have a registration cost. Just like
when you sign up to the service.

There is no reason for keeping SL unless you imply
that you are going to NAT anyways. If you intend
to do that stay with IPv4. Or: stay in your soap box ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen