I don't think that the addr arch is the right place to do this. If we start defining how each type of address in the addr arch will be used, we will basically end-up moving most of the scoped addressing architecture document into the addressing architecture, and it will never be finished.
Also, we don't have any declared consensus about how/if we will limit site-locals at all... The current addr arch is light-years ahead of the RFC version, and I think that we need to get it published. I'd like to keep talking about the site-local issues, and I hope that we can get some changes made in the scoped addressing architecture. Part of the discussion of those changes should (and will) be a discussion of what impact those changes would have on other IPv6 documents, including (possibly) the addr arch, address autoconf, etc. If/when we have agreement on what changes to make, that may include changes to other documents. In the meantime, though, I don't think we should hold up the addressing architecture. It has been held up, literally, for years because there is always some ongoing discussion that _might_ require changes to it (most of them don't), and I think that has to stop. Margaret At 08:13 AM 10/29/02, Keith Moore wrote:
I also think it would be a good idea to amend the addrarch document to discourage use of SLs except on isolated networks. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
