Hi Bob, >I submitted a draft on the moderate use case for IPv6 site-local addresses. > >Since the ID folks are on vacation until January 6, 2003, you can find a >copy at: > > http://playground.sun.com/ipng/doc/draft-hinden-ipv6-sl-moderate-00.txt > >Comments appreciated.
I have a question in the section 4.0. > 4.0 Site-Local Moderate Use Scenario > . > . > The motivation for this use case is to restrict the use of site-local > addresses to communication inside of the site and insure that they > are less likely to be used for any site to site communication. I cannot understand what this sentence means. I believe that any site-to-site communication is supposed to be done via global addresses. Site local addresses MUST not be used for inter-site communication. Or am I misunderstanding? > Using limited scope addresses for site to site communication, while > possible (i.e., via tunneling or VPN technologies), is problematic > and makes it hard to debug problems. Overall it is simpler to use > global addresses. Does it include configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels? Many IPv6 networks are built using IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels. I am in favor of this document for site-local usages. This document appropriately limits the use of site-local addresses, and still leaves the room for future usage of them (which we don't know). Personally, I would like to have Margaret's draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-00.txt as a document on the issues associated with site-local addressing (w/o recommendations section) and Bob's draft-hinden-ipv6-sl-moderate-00.txt as a site-local usage document. I know that many people have different opinions. :-) Thank you and A Happy New Year, Hiroki Ishibashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
