In your previous mail you wrote: My strong preference would be to drop site-local addresses completely. I think they're an administrative and technical nightmare. => many of us share your opinion but the other side has enough people to make a consensus unlikely...
Margaret has pointed out that our routing protocols don't support site-local addresses. The only alternative suggestion I've seen thus far is to run multiple instances of, say, OSPF on all routers within a site. But how are these distinguished from each other? => using the fact an interface belongs only to one site. OSPFv3 has an explicite provision for multi-instance per router (the idea was to make OSPF available on DMZs) so someone can shoot in his foot (oops, can run multiple OSPF processes on a multi-sited router). I'm very concerned about DNS entries. When should a DNS server -- or a caching resolver -- return a site-local address? (If the DNS never returns such things, they're useless.) One suggestion I've heard is two-faced DNS servers -- only return site-local information if the querier is within the same site. => yes, the basic answer is the two-headed devil... RFC 2182 (aka BCP 0016) specifically warns against putting all secondary servers for a zone within a site: => this obviously doesn't apply in this way for scoped names/addresses. Philosophically, I think that the problem is that a "site" is a new (and deliberately poorly defined) concept. => I propose to reserve the "what is a site?" question to Steve Deering (:-). Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
