How about simply calling whatever we end up with "organizational addresses"? I think that captures it much better than "local", "site local", "private" or whatever.
Brian Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 1. To number systems/interfaces that are only accessible from withing > > the local network. > >... > > In the case of 1. the scope is site local, although the difinition of > > "site" may be subject to change. > > Perhaps it'd clear things up if we changed the common name to > "org(anization) local" addresses? I believe that was the intent behind the > original site-local addresses, but many/most end-users have more than one > phyiscal site and may be confused. > > > Being able to route these addresses throughout the internet would be > > more of a drawback than a usable feature, as packets using these > > addresses may not enter or leave the network. > > I think it would be reasonable to add a section explicitly stating such > addresses SHOULD NOT be routed in public networks, but that end-user > organizations MAY use them amongst themselves on private connections. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
