[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> >> SLs without > >> >> site-ids cause problems for distributed applications. > >> >Only if they leak, which the scope rules prevent. > >> given the common leakage of net 10 addresses (routes, packets > >> with net 10 src/dst, and DNS records), i don't feel confortable > >> with "only if they leak". they will leak. > >Is that any reason to make them meaningful once leaked? > > sorry for confusion, i vote for killing sitelocal entirely.
This (if it's still possible) would certainly resolve the problem, but would leave open Keith's question about how to allocate a prefix for disconnected sites (especially those which don't have even a single IPv4 address and therefore an implied 6to4 prefix). Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
