> >=> 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?
=> Well, if one says "Administrators MUST NOT do X" there is no need to show them how to go around that MUST NOT ;) But you could use the reasons you mention above to justify the MUST NOT. > > And, do we require (in node requirements) that people implement > all of this cruft? => Why would we do that if the recommendation is: "MUST NOT use SL addresses for globally connected networks" ?? Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
