Okay, good. It looks like we are, somewhat, on the same page. Let's try to figure out what restrictions we think would make sense, then we can figure out whether it makes the most sense to document them in a standards track document or a BCP, okay?
Margaret At 12:19 PM 10/28/02, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
> >=> 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
