> For link-local addresses, as long as the scope is > well-defined, what are your objections?
for the most part, they're only a problem if you try to use them in applications (where zero-configuration appliances are an important subset of applications) part of the problem is that the scope of link-local addresses is *not* well-defined from an application's point of view, since applications in general don't know, and shouldn't have to know, about network topology. (scoped addresses in general are a nightmare for apps) so LL is fine for RD/ND etc. but the vast majority of apps should never see them. unfortunately the zeroconf WG is trying to make LL addresses be a general-purpose mechanism for internet appliances to obtain an address - perhaps without supporting any mechanism to get a global address, assuming (incorrectly IMHO) that the hosts that need to access that appliance will be on the same link anyway. the problem is not the fact that LL addresses exist, it's that there are no well-defined constraints on their use. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
