Keith Moore writes: > Hesham writes: > > - "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.
I agree with Hesham. We shouldn't be applying "MUST NOT"s to situations where we have workable solutions. Restricting site-locals to isolated networks 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. > > actually, no. people have shown that there are ways of > using SLs for some apps in such situations. nobody has > come up with a general solution that requires less than > either: > - expecting all non-isolated networks to provide global > addresses (and having apps ignore SLs in the presence > of globals), or > - expecting apps to do their own addressing and routing. Which is just fine! Nobody was arguing that non-isolated networks shouldn't provide global addresses -- they should. If someone want to talk globally, they should use global addresses. I think we could get consensus on that. (I'd make a small argument about your "ignore SLs in the presence of globals", however, since I already showed how using site-locals can work if the site-local is never passed outside of its scope zone). I claim that requiring non-isolated networks to provide global addresses to those entities which desire global connectivity *is* a general solution (and certainly a much better solution than banning site-locals on non-isolated networks). So why don't we standardize on that? --Brian P.S. A couple other posts in the last few hours have shown that people are (finally!) starting to think through the misguided proposal to ban site-locals and realizing the downsides. I'd like to add one more: how are sporadically connected sites (e.g. a small home/office net with a pay-by-the-minute dialup link that gets a different prefix each time it connects) supposed to work if site-locals are banned from connected networks? Person X isn't going to want their intrasite connection to go down because person Y wanted to check their mail on the Internet. We have a workable solution for this today in site-locals. Do we really want to encourage such sites to use link-locals and multi-link subnet routers between all their links? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
