> Fine by me. It's just that dealing with scopes seems to be the problem that
> most people are complaining about rather than the existence of the addresses
> themselves.
I cannot understand those people complaining about scopes. We will
have
(a) addresses that are global
(b) addresses that are local, with limited reach (firewalled or
whatever)
Now, if we have (b), isn't it a great advantage that an application
can at least see that this address may have reachability problems, by
looking it's scope level?
The proposals of allocating something slices from "global space" for
(b) addresses seem insane to me. After that, applications just have no
way of getting even a warning that using such address might be
problematic. Situation is even worse than with site locals available!
The "global space" might as well be the current site local
prefix. Interconected sites that agree to exhange routing information
about (b) addresses, on might even define a new prefix, with scope
between site local and global.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
