Keith, In a nutshell, the point you are trying to make is that RFC1918 addresses are bad because NAT exists. I agree! (It's not like we had much of a choice anyway).
Now, let's *not* generalize and say 1. site-local = RFC1918 2. site-local is bad because RFC1918 is bad. RFC1918 is not that bad without NAT, and lots of people use it without NAT as well. If I had any hint that IPv6 NAT will one day be invented and used like IPv4 NAT, I would not have this position, but this is not the case. >> 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. A somehow isolated subnet, where most hosts would have site-local only addresses, except for a gateway or proxy that would have both. > you're missing the burden that having a mixture of SLs > and globals puts on apps. You are missing the point, IMHO. This is not your call nor mine. Site-local addresses do exist, been there for long, some people will purposedly choose to use them in combination with global addresses. As of today, the address selection draft addresses use of site-local and global addresses simultaneously and I do not see a reason to change it. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
