> Site-local addresses (and more generally, scoped addresses) are a > fundamental part of the IPv6 architecture. They are an important > feature of IPv6, one of the great improvements that makes IPv6 better > than IPv4. It would be a serious loss to IPv6 if site-local addresses > were only allowed to be used on disconnected networks (not to mention a > wholly unenforceable edict - I would rather we engineered things to work > when people inevitably mixed global and site-local addresses on the same > wire).
This discussion has produced no technical justification for statements like the above, and plenty of reason to believe that SLs aren't worth their cost except for isolated networks. > Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Agreed. But I think you're mixed up about which is the baby and which is the bathwater. Site-locals are the bathwater - they once were thought to be useful but now don't seem worth very much. Forcing the baby to stay in the bathwater isn't good for the baby's health. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
