=> Just so they feel that they followed our standards? I don't think so. A much better approach IMHO would be to highlight the problems and discourage people from using site-local addresses for globally connected sites _because_ of the highlighted problems. After that you can hope that people will follow. That's all we can do.
And, in this scenario, do we also document all of the things that are needed to make things sort-of work when administrators ignore our advice -- "two-faced" DNS, a complex nest of address selection rules, routing protocol rules for SBRs, etc?
And, do we require (in node requirements) that people implement all of this cruft? If so, how are implementors supposed to distinguish between the things that they really need to implement (to make the usual case work), and the stuff that they only need to implement to support the not-recommended case? Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
