Subject: RE: SL deprecation draft

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:33:49 -0800

> > While I'd personally love to declare RFC 1918 "Historic", it really
is
> > completely IPv4 specific so we have no reason to reference it.
> 
> I would agree that RFC1918 is pure v4 issue, but we will need take
into
> account that when these IPv4 networks are connected as part of IPv6
> networks
> we could get flooded with a lot of the ::10.x.x.x addresses that are
> supposed to be "site local" under IPv4, but are now neither site local
nor
> unique under IPv6.

Frankly, I don't believe that we should worry about net 10 in the site
local deprecation draft. The site local deprecation document is
specifically about the prefix 0xFEC0::/10. In any case, such addresses
are explicitly banned in the IPv6 addressing architecture. Section 2.5.5
of RFC 3513 states:

   Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address"
   must be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address.

Why should we deprecate an address format that is already illegal? 

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:22:37 +0200

> Why should we deprecate an address format that is already illegal?

I would agree with this, but I would feel more comfortable with an explicit
statement rather than an implicit one. I have been speaking to different
companies here in Israel, and the basic answer is that if I can not have
site locals and NAT then I will not move to IPv6. This is people speaking
strictly from a perceived security issue where they do not what the (bank,
telephone company, or other fill in the blank here) to have their private
secure data addressable from the internet just because there is a change in
the IP version.

It seems that based on the security failures in the various NT servers and
firewalls they are sticking to unreachability as they key security option.

Eric