Vladislav Yasevich wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > Proposed new text: > > > > Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of > > a site which is not connected to the Internet and therefore does not > > need a global prefix. They must not be used for a site that is connected > > to the Internet. Using site-local addresses, a subnet ID may be up to > > 54-bits long, but it is recommended to use at most 16-bit subnet IDs, > > for convenience if the site is later connected to the Internet using a > > global prefix. > > > > I have some reservations about this this proposal from the implementors > point of of view. > > The proposal uses the words "must no" (lower case) and that makes it > somewhat unclear and brings up the following questions. > > If the implemenation supports the use of site-locals when a global prefix > is availiable and the node is connected to the "global internet", is the > implementation compliante with the addr-arch? > > If the node is configured with both site-locals and globals, is the > configuration addr-arch compliant? > > IMHO, it would almost be easier to remove the "must not be used" sentence > from the above paragraph.
Yes, I like that suggestion. It's consistent with Harald's comment that we don't have an enforcement department. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
