What I want to know is why the concept "local" in
the absense of enforceability (cf strong auth)
isn't a thoroughly bogus concept. Site-locals seem
to be trying to cling to that discredited
bogosity.
Mike
Keith Moore writes:
> > Here are three models for address selection when both site-local and global
> > addresses are available. Which (if any) is preferred:
>
> fourth model:
>
> discourage use of site-locals when stable global addresses are available:
>
> Pros: drastically reduces complexity of applications that would otherwise
> have to deal with site-locals
>
> doesn't artifically split the problem of apps dealing with
> renumbering into local vs. non-local applications.
>
> Cons: does not permit use of site-locals for avoiding the effects
> of renumbering for local applications.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
