> I think this is a terrible idea. I can envision many situations where a > host would need both a site-local and a global address.
please, elaborate. I haven't seen a good one yet. > > In fact, I am suggesting that all routers and hosts treat > > site-local unicast addresses exactly like global unicast > > addresses, and that we administratively restrict the use > > of site-local unicast addresses to non-globally-connected > > networks. > > I am comfortable with this. It's roughly what we do with RFC1918 > addresses today, and it has worked fine for many people. YES, this is what RFC 1918 _says_ - those addresses are for isolated networks only. And had those restrictions been adhered to I agree it would have worked fine for most people. NO, it's not roughly what we do with RFC 1918 addresses today - roughly what we do with them to day is use them as local addresses behind a NAT - a usage which is NOT consistent with RFC 1918 and which has caused huge problems. NO, this has not worked fine for many people - it's broken a large number of applications, and it has had a adverse effect on the network's ability to support apps. > Link-locals are > not routable, but site-locals are within the site, and since hopefully > nobody will invent IPv6 NAT, filtering site-local addresses at the edge > of the site seems the appropriate solution to me. you're missing the burden that having a mixture of SLs and globals puts on apps. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
