> I have a basic problem with this thread. We have a few people discussing > fundamental changes in close to a vacuum. At best the result of this > discussion should be a separate BCP, but before that happens operators > of networks that actually use 1918 space need to be engaged to find out > their requirements. > > The whole idea that SL should be revoked if a global is available is > bogus. It is certainly reasonable for the manufacturer of light switches > to only support SL/LL rather than potentially multiple global prefixes. > There is no reason for those devices to interact across a scope > boundary, so the peer nodes that may also need global access MUST keep > their SL to interact in the limited scope.
I thought global addresses could be used to communicate with peers using addresses of any scope as long as the interface over which the packet is sent is in the same scope zone as that peer. As such, a node with a global address does not require a site-local address to communicate with a node which has a site-local address but lacks a global address, as long as the two nodes reside within the same site. Roy -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
