As we still have not provided a replacement for the FEC0:: addresses I would be hesitant to start trying to make rules about what is allowed and not allowed until a replacement is defined.
As it is the WG is spending a lot of time debating items that make a lot of sense rather than offering reasonable alternatives. As I understand it we have removed site locals (FEC0::) after they were included in an RFC and implemented in many places, so now it was recommended to not assign this range to prevent conflicts (which makes it a de facto usable site local). Lets not make the same mistake. A best practices or RFC that gives a solution is better than trying to tell people that is bad and not supported so if you do it you are not compliant. If NAT is so bad, then offer an alternative not a critisim. Network Admins. have gotten in the habit of blocking reall addresses from the public network and will need a good altnative before they stop doing it, so let's find an alternative. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
