link-locals should live. site-local in this case can be multicast limited by scope that would be similar to site-local. that is neeeded for multicast and the scope is better than the IPv6 TTL use. But we don't need unicast site-locals is what I support.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Keith Moore; R.P. Aditya; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fwd: IPv6 Scoped Addresses and Routing Protocols > > > DHCPv6 currently uses a site-scoped multicast address as the > default for > forwarding messages from a relay agent to servers. The relay > agent can be > configured with a list of unicast addresses for servers > instead of using > the site-scoped multicast address. > > DHCPv6 also depends on link-local addresses for communication > between the > client and the on-link relay agent. > > - Ralph > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> For link-local addresses, as long as the scope is > > >> well-defined, what are your objections? > > >for the most part, they're only a problem if you try to use > > >them in applications (where zero-configuration appliances > > >are an important subset of applications) > > >part of the problem is that the scope of link-local addresses > > >is *not* well-defined from an application's point of view, > > >since applications in general don't know, and shouldn't have > > >to know, about network topology. > > > > as long as the applications are properly implemented > with sockaddrs, > > they are okay. the problem reside in protocols that pass IPv6 > > addresses in payloads (since view of the scope is > different by nodes), > > including: > > - FTP (EPSV/EPRT does not help - for instance, how do you decide > > the scope zone for data connection?) > > - DNS (AAAA/PTR does not represent scope correctly) > > - and all NAT-unfriendly protocols > > > > I'm okay to see site-local IPv6 address to go away, however, I'm > > worried because there are more than a couple of > protocols designed with > > site-local IPv6 address in mind (DHCPv6, router > renumbering, ...). > > > > we need to keep link-local IPv6 address at least for ND. use of > > link-locals within zeroconf environment needs further study. > > > > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
