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.
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. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:51 PM > To: Steven M. Bellovin > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fwd: IPv6 Scoped Addresses and Routing Protocols > > > > My strong preference would be to drop site-local addresses > completely. > > I think they're an administrative and technical nightmare. > > for that matter, so are link-local addresses. they do have some > legitimate uses, but they need to be kept to a minimum > (in both ipv6 and ipv4) > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
