Erik,
>The only way I can think of doing this involves
> - ICANN allocating a special tld for the local addresses, and
> - applications like web servers know do on the fly use different URLs
> in the HTML depending on who is asking for the page
> (e.g. http://foo.local/xyz vs. http://foo.example.com/xyz)
>
>This is problematic both at the political level and at the technical level.
>>And the foo.local URLs are sure to "leak" outside the site e.g. by being
>included in email messages.
But maybe we need to do this or we are not done with the site-local (or
other non-global scope addresses in the IPng)???
>Thus it would be good to have a bit more detail on your proposal before
>we take it for given that it is the best way to proceed.
But there is a core architectural assumption here being proposed
regardless if non-global scopes work. By axiom global scopes do work,
can exist in the DNS, and will work end-to-end, so from common sense
type engineering (I know an art being lost) prefer them.
But I do see your point.
/jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
