Hi Brian,
<snip> >That, in a nutshell, allows a single instance of RIPng to control >the advertising of site local unicast prefixes. Though I haven't >done the work, I would see OSPF as acting in a similar manner. This does sound like it would work, and that similar changes would work for other routing protocols. I don't think that any rocket science is necessary to get site-local addressing and routing to work. However, there is additional specification work required in the routing area to make the routing protocols consistent with current IPv6 thinking on the use of site-local addresses. I'm also concerned about the complexity that site-local addressing adds to an IPv6 host. Looking at the default address selection rules, it appears that host implementations will be impacted by site-local addressing (implementation size and complexity), even in cases where it isn't really used. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
