> I've got some other problems with the document also - specifically > the idea that link-local addresses are preferable to global addresses. > Global addresses are always preferable because all applications > can tolerate them. At most, LL addresses should be used only > when there is no other alternative, because some applications > need to treat them specially (this isn't as bad in v6 as in v4) > But LL addresses should probably be used only when they are > explicitly specified.
Part of the issue here depends on how the application finds out addresses of scope less than global. Link-local addresses don't make sense in the DNS (and site-local don't make sense in the DNS except when a site is running a two-faced DNS). Thus if the application is going to explicitly be configured to use a less-than global address, or explicitly use some link-local name resolution protocol, this isn't likely to cause a problem in practise. And for the applications, such as routing daemons, that communicate using link-local (multicast) addresses the specification causes the right behavior - a link-local source address will be used when the destination is link local. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
