> > I don't have any problem with IETF/IANA saying "the addresses formerly > > allocated to site-local will never be re-assigned". I do have > > a problem with IETF giving any support to the notion that it's > > reasonable to use site-local addresses. > > In the real world among adults and outside the delusions of those > who think standards committees are Powerful and In Charge, having > the IETF/IANA say "the addresses formerly allocated to site-local > will never be re-assigned" is indistinguishable from having the > IETF/IANA say "here are some site-local addresses; have fun." some people can't read. I'm not sure what we can do about that. things that we write can only benefit people who are capable of reading. fortunately, some people can read, so writing can have a useful effect. > The talk about the evils of site local addresses (and NAT) and the errors > of those who want them may be accurate (I'm inclined to agree), but it > is also functionally indistinguishable from the talk about IPv8 and the > foolisness of those someone likes to call "legacy internet engineers." some people lack the background to understand technical arguments. I'm not sure what we can do about that either. fortunately, some people do have such a background, and those people do have some influence. it might not be as much as we'd like, but it's not zero. > Neither side is doing anything to help get IPv6 deployed, but just > the opposite. further deployment of IPv6 with site-local might be worse than not deploying it. ultimately the goal isn't to get IPv6 deployed; it's to get a usable Internet deployed and make sure it works well. saying that we should just go ahead and deploy IPv6 without bothering to make sure that everything works is what got us into this mess. > Don't the IESG and IAB have anything better to do than hearing appeals, > counter-appeals, and counter-counter-appeals from people with nothing > better to do than prove their analytic and political powers by arguing > this issue? absolutely they do. but I'm not the one trying to waste their time on a senseless appeal. > Instead of playing childish lawyer games, why not write successors to > RFC 1627 and RFC 1597 or an equivalents to RFC 3027 and let the market > decide? The market will decide no matter what the IETF says or many > zillion times it says it. the market has demonstrated that it's not capable of making technically sound decisions. letting the market decide is no substitute for good design. do we let the market decide whether a plane will crash or a bridge will stay up? > P.S. I meant my question about ::FFFF:10.0.0.0/104 seriously. Are > those IPv6 site local addresses that are already available and > impossible to retract or even deprecate? If so, how can anyone > justify arguing (not to mention appealing) this issue? of course they're not going to be reallocated for other purposes. but it makes perfect sense to say "don't use these; they will cause various kinds of problems and will cause various kinds of failures"