|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Fwd: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing (fwd)
Greetings - feel free to take a look at this if you're an IPv6 implementor with thoughts on site-local addressing. Please don't reply to NANOG, only to the ipng list (subscription info below). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:37:56 -0500 >To: [email protected] >From: Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]> >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 protected]). > - 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 > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 protected] >--------------------------------------------------------------------
|