> Margaret Wasserman writes: > >>>In any case, the site boundary should never be larger >>>than the IGP scope, so if we are going to talk about >>>defaults, rather than assuming every interface is in a >>>different site, why not assume every EGP/IGP boundary >>>identifies a different site? If we can get past that, >>>maybe we can start talking about area boundaries as a >>>reasonable default. > > This works pretty well to bound the problem for routing > protocols and routers. > > I'm not sure that it does much, though, to address the issues > that site-locals raise for transport protocols, applications, > DNS and management protocols. Am I missing something?
Well, this is the ipv6 working group's mailing list after all. We've been admonished before for messing around in other group's layers. But for what it's worth: I'm not aware of any problems scoped addresses cause for transport protocols, the modifications I had to make to our TCP implementation were straight-forward and obvious. Most applications don't pass around addresses in the data stream, and I've already explained in other email how the few that do can handle the issue. Others have spoken up with DNS solutions. Plus it is not clear to me that we need a DNS solution. Even Keith says "DNS should not be a MUST. not all applications need to use it. Also, DNS is a separate service from IP. IP should not be thought to be dependent on DNS." Personally, I think site-locals are a big win even if I only ever look them up in a hosts file. Finally, I'm not aware of any problems site-locals cause for management protocols either. --Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
