Fwd: Re: site-local != NAT

[Spencer Dawkins]

And, as a spectacular example of the kind of problem that the
IETF doesn't know how to work on...

Please note that I didn't say "that no one in the IETF knows how
to solve", or even "that the IETF as a whole doesn't know how to
solve". My point is that we don't know how or where to discuss
problems like this, except on the IETF mailing list and in
meeting hallways.

Spencer, as we're discussing adding "problems of complex scope"
to the next version of the problem statement draft...

--- John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:
> To: Michael Thomas <mat at cisco.com>
> CC: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>, "randy at psg.com"
> <randy at psg.com>,
>    "ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: site-local != NAT
> 
> Now, like it or not, we have a number of widely-distributed 
> applications and other things, including some security 
> protocols, that use IP addresses as endpoint identifiers. 
> They 
> do that, in part, because there is no more satisfactory 
> candidate for an endpoint identifier.  Certainly DNS names,
> with 
> the current definition of the DNS, do not qualify as a 
> satisfactory alternative and the number of standards-track 
> alternatives that have received even moderate acceptance is, 
> well, very small.   Comparatively speaking, the number of 
> network-seconds (or almost any other plausible measure you can
> 
> think of) consumed by the collection of applications and other
> 
> things that use IP addresses as endpoint identifiers 
> significantly exceeds the number of network-seconds used for 
> either referencing IPv6 addresses or using other types of 
> standardized endpoint identifiers... keep in mind that, from
> at 
> least one perspective on the situation, TCP is one of those 
> things that uses IP addresses as endpoint identifiers.

[deleted down to]

> 
> So...
> 
> (i) If you want to get rid of the use of IP addresses as 
> endpoint identifiers, let's see an I-D that describes a 
> reasonable alternative, and how to get there from there, 
> processed along the standards track.  Asserting that IP 
> addresses are not very good endpoint identifiers is not 
> especially useful -- almost everyone agrees with you, but many
> 
> of us are concerned about an operational network, and not,
> when 
> it conflicts, philosophy.
> 
> (ii) Don't bother arguing that SL should be retained because
> it 
> is standardized and entrenched and then turn around and argue 
> for getting rid of IP addresses as endpoint identifiers
> without 
> recognizing that usage are even more standardized and
> entrenched.
> 
> I continue to believe that there are serious and significant 
> architectural issues underlying this discussion, ones that we,
> 
> as a community, need to address and address soon.