While I do not pretend to be the most versed in all of the IPv6 related RFC's, I am questioning what the goals of site-local or a similar replacement would be.
Either you have link-local addresses, or you have global routable addresses. Any attempt at providing something that is site local suggests to me that you open the doors wide for something like NAT, which of course none of us wants. There is enough address space in the global table, why can we not have some sort of free reservation system (the free tunnel brokers would suggest it is economically feasible) for sites that want local addresses but do not intend on globally routing them. Should these sites want connectivity to the global internet, they would then get an allocation from their ISP as necessary. I expect I'm missing something, but perhaps not. -- Todd Fries .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free Daemon Consulting, LLC Land: 405-748-4596 http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com Mobile: 405-203-6124 "..in support of free software solutions." Key fingerprint: 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A Key: http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt (last updated 2003/03/13 07:14:10) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
