> It isn't the purpose of the addressing architecture document to > define the full _use_ of site-local addresses.
yes I understand that. trying to outline the full extent to which use of SL addresses might be reasonable (if that's even useful or feasible) would certainly require a separate (and probably quite lengthy) document. > At this point, I think that it is most important to figure out > what limitations (if any) the WG can agree (though rough consensus) > to place on the use of site-local addresses. I expect we'll have to remain fairly imprecise about this because it's very hard to outline the exact set of conditions for which SLs don't cause much harm. It's much easier to outline a somewhat narrower set of conditions for which SLs don't cause much harm. Maybe it would help if we could first get consensus on what SLs are good for, since there's little point in relaxing rules for use of SLs for situations where there are not valid use cases. I think we can agree that SLs are useful in isolated networks and networks with intermittent connectivity and lacking stable prefixes. are there any other valid use cases? (no, security/filtering is not a valid use case - since this is as easily and more flexibly accomplished with globals.) 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
