Those of you involved in the IETF v6 working group probably know already,
but, the rest of you, listen up!
There is a consensus call in the IPv6 working group regarding deprecation
of site-locals. It ends Monday, April 7th, 2003 at 5pm EST. Voting is done
by sending email to the wg list, "[log in to unmask]", preferably
with "in-reply-to" set to point to msg-id
[log in to unmask], included below.
Please state your opinion . If you are unaware of site-local, read the
presentations refered to in the e-mail.
For the record: I personally strongly support the idea of deprecating
site-local. You must of course make up your own mind, but please think
*very* hard about what you do before voting to keep site-local.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:37:56 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Margaret Wasserman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: [log in to unmask]
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
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:
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:
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
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
([log in to unmask]).
- 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
- Site-locals should be retained for their access control
- 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 [log in to unmask]