Just an attempt to summarize this thread:
Jim Bound thinks the use of site-local addresses is bad.
Robert Elz things that the use of site-local addresses is ok, but that
two-faced DNS is bad.
Other folks don't think two-faced DNS is so bad. (I'm in this camp too...)
Robert Elz also made a good suggestion as to how hosts can learn the
site-local addresses of other hosts in the site (least-wise it seemed good
to me). But the state of this suggestion is that it exists in an email and
nowhere else (i.e., no internet draft), so unless someone writes it up
nothing will happen to it? (By the way Robert, are the ICMP "tell me your
site local addresses" and ICMP "site local source exiting the site" messages
you mention in your suggestion in existing drafts, or are these new messages
you are making up?)
In the absense of Robert's suggestion or Erik's draft
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05.txt) (both of which require changes to
existing implementations), I gather that there are only two possibilities:
1. Don't use site-local addresses at all.
2. Use site-local addresses and two-faced DNS.
Is this a reasonable summary?
PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
