Keith,
> >> So - yes, we need addresses that can be easily allocated
> for local use
> >> (and perhaps for other purposes also), but they should not
> carry with
> >> them any assumptions about the degree of locality or proximity,
> >> trustworthiness, filtering, or policy.
> >
> > I agree. I think that in documenting addresses allocated for local
> > use, we should not imply that these addresses have any particular
> > properties, except that they are intended for local use.
>
> even the word "local" might be too much. it is not out of the question
> for networks from all over the world to agree to exchange traffic using
> GUPIs and/or PUPIs.
Local might still be OK, if you think that the addresses have 'local' relevance
not global relevance. One possible meaning of local is:
Not broad or general; not widespread: such as 'local outbreaks of flu.'
In that sense, I am happy with the term local, at least until someone proposes
something better.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
