In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m.com writes:
>So, to make SL work, we need changes to the DNS name server, changes
>to the resolver, routers to advertise the scope zones, hosts to
>learn the scope zones from routers and include them on DDNS
>registrations and use them in making routing decisions, updates to
>routing protocols, IANA needs to manage a new zone scope naming
>space, and who knows what else.
>
>Wouldn't it make sense to hold off on SL until we at least have
>some proposals on the table which describe the changes necessary to
>make SL work, at which time we could have a discussion on the
>technical merits of the proposal(s)? Until that time, though, the
>SL unicast address space should either be reserved or moved to
>experimental.
>
I think this is the key point. Regardless of the possible benefits of
site-local addresses -- and I'm willing to withhold judgment on that
point -- we don't know in detail how to make them work. At a minimum,
we need changes in routing and the DNS. We may need new global
namespaces as well, with all that implies for co-ordination and
administrative overhead.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
