> > > (or perhaps even for a vendor to support them)? > >What does it mean to not implement site-local addresses? Would an >implementation reject any packet with a site-local prefix in it? For a >host, I think you'd be hard pressed to not support them. For a router, >I'd assume one has to implement configuration stuff to enforce >boundaries.
For a host, not implementing site-local addresses is approximately equivalent to treating them exactly like global addresses -- what many of us do now. So, never mind :-). >Addresses can only be preferred if they actually are candidates for >use (e.g, were returned by the DNS, are assigned to an interface, >etc.) Individual rules aren't used unless they apply to the addresses >being considered. So I don't see any immediate problem if a particular >address type isn't used or implemented. Makes sense. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
