NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing
- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently connected sites.
- Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal connections
to survive global prefix renumbering.
While not primarily an access control mechanism, site-local addresses can be
part of an access control solution - any machines that have only site local
addresses will not have global accessibility (assuming correct filters).
In a network with filters and multi-homing, site local addresses seem to
impose no additional complexity on applications (see list message from
Sun/Mon), and may provide hints if the application wishes to pay attention.
I am in general agreement with the "Moderate" model documented by Bob Hinden
after the last IETF (the one presented in the slides at the recent IETF
seems to differ in some small but significant ways) and in agreement with
Tony Hain's recent draft.
Finally, I've seen several decent enhancements for some perceived SL
issues. I haven't seen satisfactory alternatives for the key SL deployment
scenarios.
--
Andrew White [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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
