> link-locals are different. The reason is that link-local is a > control mechanisms in the Internet architecture and gives the > /etc/init of stateless addr-conf, whereas site-local is a carry > over of the band-aid of private addresses from IPv4 gone bad.
I understand the need for LLs. But it would be a Good Idea IMHO to explain that they're not intended for general-purpose use or as a security mechanism, nor to relieve simple devices of the burden of supporting other mechanisms for acquiring addresses (and this applies to IPv4 also!) > As an implementor I would love to rip out all but global, multicast, > and link-local from the architecture it would be worth the pain and > as Margaret pointed out in her /etc/init and steve responded to they > don't work anywhere now. > Lets kill them. I'm inclined to agree, at least for SLs. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
