> > > => I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the IETF > > > has an enforcement authority. I meant that this words > > > are used in cases where: if not followed, the protocol > > > will break. Therefore people generally follow them. > > > > if SLs are used in an environment where applications communicate > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > across scope boundaries, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > => In other words, be careful how you use it. That's not > a reason to deprecate the use of site-locals altogether.
Their use should be confined to completely isolated networks so that they don't break applications. And yet this same constraint was imposed on RFC 1918 and it didn't stop RFC 1918 addresses from being misused. So yes, I think there's a compelling case for deprecating SLs entirely. But I'd be happy to hear of a way to impose a 1918-like restriction that would actually work this time around. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
