> > Yes, needless complexity is bad. But site-locals don't add any > > significant complexity to applications (which I think I've > demonstated > > enough in too many emails already). > > this is only true if globals are always available to any node > that potentially participates in an application that > communicates off-site - > which essentially means any node in any network which has an > external connection.
So to restate - Keith, it sounds like you now agree, that with a reasonably small amount of additional complexity, apps can function in a network environment that has both globals & site-locals - subject to your condition about globals being available for apps that communicate off-site? Certainly - if a node is going to run an application that communicates off-site then it needs a global address. I mostly agree with the second part - I would say any general-purpose node in any network which has an external connection should have a global address. However I think we will have limited-function nodes, which run a fixed set of applications, and if those applications do not need globals then the node does not need a global address. I think the vendor of one of these devices should have the freedom to determine the device's "out of the box" configuration, based on expected usage patterns. Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
