>> 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.
as long as the applications are properly implemented with sockaddrs,
they are okay. the problem reside in protocols that pass IPv6
addresses in payloads (since view of the scope is different by nodes),
including:
- FTP (EPSV/EPRT does not help - for instance, how do you decide
the scope zone for data connection?)
- DNS (AAAA/PTR does not represent scope correctly)
- and all NAT-unfriendly protocols
I'm okay to see site-local IPv6 address to go away, however, I'm
worried because there are more than a couple of protocols designed with
site-local IPv6 address in mind (DHCPv6, router renumbering, ...).
we need to keep link-local IPv6 address at least for ND. use of
link-locals within zeroconf environment needs further study.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
