Hi Michel, It is my personal opinion that we should leave site-local addresses as-is and strictly limit their use to completely disconnected, isolated networks.
I also think that we should work on a way to offer provider- independent IPv6 addressing, but I think that these should be global addresses, not site-locals. While it is possible that ISPs will not advertise these addresses in global routing tables, I do not think that they should be limited to a "site", or treated as scoped addresses (with zone IDs, etc. as in the scoped addressing architecture). I think that they should be global addresses that may be filtered at administrative boundaries (and _will_ be filtered at some boundaries, if we can't find an aggregable way to allocate them). I do not, personally, think that we gain much by trying to improve current site-locals to be more unique. Margaret At 02:47 PM 12/5/2002 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I am not sure that we have general agreement that there > should be two courses. I, for one, do not think that > we should create two different types of addresses... Now you got me lost. If you say site-locals should not be used for external connectivity, how are you going to do GUPIs without creating another type of address? Michel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
