bingo! > The scope discussion is flawed, held in the wrong forum and should cease. > > The charter -- according to the web page -- says: "The primary focus > of the IPv6 w.g. is to complete the standardization of the IPv6 > protocols." Consequently, the wg is an Internet Area working group; > *not* an Ops WG. > > We have reached (albeit rough) consensus that the scoped addresses > are to be limited to link-local only. > > But, as far as I can tell, the scope discussion has not terminated, > but instead ended up in a swamp where implementors and protocol > architects are trying to teach operators how to run their networks, > by inventing useless management complications that neither will > contribute to the simple, smooth operation of an IPv6 Internet, nor > assist in securing hosts against evil-minded attacks. > > Let's look at the some of the core arguments: > > * "Non-routable prefixes are inherently safe". Perhaps. One could rewrite > this to: "Non-routed prefixes are inherently safe". If I route a part= > of > my /48 only in my IGP, and blackhole it in my border routers, I have > created a non-routed prefix, as long as my border devices can throw > packets. (There is overwhelming operational experience that says > "routers can drop packets".) In terms of "scope" this so treated > global prefix chunk walks like a site-local, talks like a site-local, > is safe like a site-local[0] but lacks the need for extra scope- > checking code. > > * "Renumbering is hard". Well, stop whining and help work on the > renumbering drafts instead. I have not renumbered any v6 networks yet, > but have done a fair bit of v4 network restruction. To me, the solution > lies in abandoning the identifier overloading that takes place when > people configure applications to use IP addresses directly, and > instead apply suitable layers of abstraction. Allowing people to > preserve the overloading by making it "convenient" to keep the address > for long times is a step in the wrong direction. > > To me, this looks like material for an operational discussion, that > should result in two BCP documents, "Practices for controlled > limitation of node reachability in IP networks" and "IPv6 Network > address plan design with renumbering in mind.", none of which look > like Internet area documents but instead like Ops stuff. > > May I humbly suggest that the people so greatly concerned with how > networks are to be operated go and write these BCPen in an Ops > group, and leave the crippling featurism out of the IP protocol. > > Best regards, > -- > M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist > +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE > > We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead. > > [0] Maybe. I help run a pretty large multi-AS network, edge and > core mixed, the uses more and more IPv6. We have tried, but can't > come up with any reasons for inherently crippled prefixes (we are > at times way too good at crippling the useful ones ourselves...), > so we can't really tell whether they are useful, they just do not > seem so. >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
