Keith Moore wrote: > I don't follow your analogy. Let me try one of my own. Expecting > apps to use SLs is like expecting that someone who is married to > a person named "mary" will be equally satisfied with the person > named "mary" in whatever town he happens to be in (if there is one), > or that he'll be satisfied if he cannot telephone his wife (or reaches > a different person) if he isn't in his hometown.
Ah. I understand now, and this does highlight a potential problem. It's not just about filtering traffic between sites. In the case where a node leaves one site and moves to another, all site-scoped references to the old site must be invalidated too. If I have a cached reference to "mary" in my original site, it is unlikely to do what I expect in my new site. The presence of the interface id will help reduce this problem, but will not eliminate it. So a problem with site locals is that applications must not pass these addresses (and perhaps names) around as if they were globally scoped, which means that any application that could distribute or store addresses should be aware of them and behave accordingly. Alternatively, the user has to make sure that the purity of the site is preserved. Both options have drawbacks. Using unique addresses and prefixes removes the non-uniqueness problem (addresses moved outside their intended scope simply fail), but reintroduces the need for administration. Do you agree? -- Andrew White [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
