Hi Margaret, > >What is the amount of work to depreciate site locals - how > many RFCs need > >to be updated? I'm not convinced that deprecating site > locals really solves > >anything. > > The work to keep, and finish, site-locals is much greater than > the work to deprecate them. > > To deprecate them, I think that the addressing architecture > and the default address selection rules would be the only RFCs > (both at PS) that we need to change. > > To keep them, we need to document and resolve the issues that > they cause, update all of the IPv6 routing protocols to > document how site-boundaries are maintained, and document > how address selection will be performed in several upper > layer protocols (at least SCTP, SIP and FTP). We might also > need to provide guidance to non-IETF applications protocol > developers and/or application developers for how to handle > site-local addresses in non-IETF applications. And, we'd need > to specify split DNS.
Good point, I stand corrected on this point. You might be interested in this draft, the SCTP folks made a proposal how to handle IPv6 address scoping and SCTP - its only 3 pages, so its a quick read: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01.txt John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
