I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I would like to make the following observations:
- "MUST NOTs" are there for a reason, saying MUST NOT when it can be done and protocols don't break is not a good idea. - People have shown that there are ways of using site-locals for single and multi-sited hosts today and making sure that apps don't break. We've also seen that this comes at a cost and complexity, but it is possible with today's standards. - Defaults for hosts and routers have been discussed and it looks like we have some pretty straight forward defaults to handle SLs (see Bob hinden's emails among the other thousand emails on this). Personally, I don't have a big problem with the suggestion itself, but I do not agree with it, simply because it's a meaningless restriction. I'd rather see a separate BCP for this, or at least say should not and explain why. Finally, I do hope to see the addrarch RFC in DS in my lifetime. Hesham PS: You know many designs are not perfect the first time around and band aids are often needed later. In this case the problem is not that big. IMHO changing fundamental RFCs when people are shipping products is worse than having a band aid for SLs. Please, let's move on and get a BCP. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
