>
> > I think there are two motivations for site-locals (that not everybody
> > agrees with):
> > 1. For sites that are isolated i.e. do not have a global prefix.
> > 2. To completely isolate traffic local to a site from
> > site-renumbering events.
>
> Let me add a third motivation - site-local addresses allow for very
> simple security policies or filters. For example the default
> configuration for a file server might be to provide service only to
> site-local clients.
>
Another good example for this is an admistrative domain which does not
want to expose it's internal ipv6-address topology to outside world.
The nodes within this administrative domain communicate with each other
only and do not require to communicate with outside world or communicate
through only one node (in that domain) which maintains global addresses.
Site-local addresses are appropriate choice in this scenario. This may
be a scenario when we envision IPv6 in the operator's access
network.
-Samita
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
