As I already said under another subject line, what I understood we were deprecating is SL as defined in the current address architecture, i.e. FEC0::/10.
That's the only formal definition of SL, so I don't see what else we could be referring to. Brian Steven Blake wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:37, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > The question is: > > > > Should we deprecate IPv6 site-local unicast addressing? > > > > Valid responses are: > > > > "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing". > > "NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing". > > I think the question needs to be more specific: > > - Deprecate addresses in fec0::/48? > > - Deprecate addresses in fec0::/10 (with no scheme to make bits 10:47 > probabilistically or globally unique at a site)? > > - Deprecate all non-PA, non-link-local unicast addresses? > > Regards, > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ericsson IP Infrastructure +1 919-472-9913 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
