it seems obvious in hindsight that private addresses were a mistake in IPv4. so the fact that they exist, and that we now find it necessary to warn people to not advertise them in DNS, shouldn't be cited as a justification to make further mistakes which will then necessitate further kludges to DNS.
as for the idea that we need SL addresses for nonconnected sites - far better that we establish a new prefix for those addresses and allow IANA or the RIRs to dole out address blocks from that space, with the caveat that they will never be advertised on the public Internet (actually they should be filtered). they will still be useful for private connections between networks, and giving everyone a unique prefix whether they are connected or not will eliminate a big motivation to use NAT in IPv6. granted that still creates a kind of scoped address, but at least it's globally unique. I think it would be better to advertise addresses with non-routable prefixes in DNS than to advertise SLs in DNS, with all of the kludges that this would entail. at least a host or app should be able to tell rather quickly that a prefix is private and that it doesn't have a route to it. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
