> > >and what compelling purpose does all of this complexity serve? > > >none that I can see. > > > > I think that this is a key question. > > > > Could folks who support the use of site-local addresses on > > globally-connected networks explain what benefits they > > offer that out-weigh the considerable costs? > > Are you suggesting that someone should actually write router code to > prevent this (i.e., treat site-locals as anything other than regular > unicast addresses)? > > It would be better to produce a "Use of Non-Globally > Reachable Unicast > Addresses" BCP rather than put meaningless restrictions on > address use > in the specs.
=> This makes a lot more sense IMHO. How can we write "MUST NOT use site-local when global addresses are available" in a spec? I mean how can we enforce that? If we can't enforce a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then it shouldn't be in the spec in the first place. Hesham > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ericsson IP Infrastructure +1 919-472-9913 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
