Keith,
>
> > and providing the great
> > IPv6 applications which their customers want but that break in the presence
> > of site-local addresses.
>
> this part makes no sense. applications that don't work under such
> conditions don't get deployed very far - and people never get to use them.
>
No, you just missed the point. Compelling applications that don't work
with site-local addresses will render the use of site-local addresses extinct.
Customers that pay money will guarantee that, as long as there are no other
reasons to be using site-local addresses (address scarcity, renumbering not
working etc.). I am willing to believe that such applications will exist and
that the other issues which would drive the NAT'ification of IPv6 can be
overcome. But I am not willing to bet the farm on it and have to reinvent
IPv6 RFC 1918 after the fact and police up all the mess that has been created
in the interim by system administrators that allocated chunks of global address
space that they didn't own. We need to have a viable alternative to site-
local addresses rather than hanging our hat on puritanical proscriptions which
are going to be ignored unless the problems are solved (renumbering, address
scarcity, etc.). No such alternative has been proposed and achieved consensus.
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
