On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 03:21 PM, Naiming Shen wrote:
] > As long as we are clear that, the "site-local" does not get special
] > treatment in terms of routing and dns, we should care less about if
] > "site-local" is deprecated or still lived.
]
] no. this is not sufficient. apps must not need to care about
] site-local either.
If an application choose to care about SL and non-SL, I have no problem at all. It's not our business to discuss it here
no, you have it backwards. the existence of SL forces apps to care about them.
] nor is it acceptable to treat site-local as a ] security mechanism.
If they trust the SL as their security mechanism(like 99% of IPv4 users do it today), its their problem not to use firewall, but it should not be forbidden.
we can't forbid people from doing stupid things. but neither should we penalize every host, every router, every application in order to allow people to do stupid things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
