] > 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. ] 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. ] ] > It's perfectly fine and ] > actually somewhat useful if "site-local" plays the same role as in ] > IPv4 addresses defined in rfc1918. ] ] no. rfc1918 has been a disaster. we need to learn from past mistakes, ] not repeat them. If any IP users think using rfc1918 is a disaster, again, it's their choice to avoid them(if they can get globally routable addresses). there are many reasons to use rfc1918 addresses, not all related to the internet security. ] ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- ] 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] ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Naiming -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
