> > > > => 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.
=> It has a better chance of working this time because: - No one expects addresses to become a scarce resource in our lifetime anyway - I haven't seen any plans by ISPs to charge based on the number of addresses. So, I don't think it's quite the same problem as with RFC1918. Hesham > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
