That in lies the great debate... There are varied opinions at this time as to what the next course of action is to be... The main issue as I saw it with SL is that the "scoping" was too vague and left a lot to be interpreted by the implementation... There has been talk of using 2002:RFC1918 space as well as assigning a seperate space... And there are still those that just want to keep SL completely...
Regards,
Jeremy
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:37:53PM +0100, Iain Young wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 06:14:32AM -0700, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't bother to spend too much time trying to deal with
> > site-local addressing as it has been deprecated by the IETF IPv6 WG...
>
> Any what are they suggesting instead ? An RFC1918 like range within
> the 'production' prefixes ? Or just use the RFC1918 range within the
> 2002:: prefix ?
>
pgpwMvKM0eKGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
