> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> site-local was deprecated because nobody could agree what a > "site" was, which > in other words means it's down under the same swamp we are > now waist deep in. Okay, I'll gladly agree on both points. > so my previous question stands. what's a "site"? My not-well-articulated point was: if everyone seems to have made RFC 1918 work quite well, why do we need to get overly precise in this time around? As far as my own preferences go, I liked site-local and I equally like mind ULA-Cs with some flexibility. Even though I have no fool-proof definition for what a "site" is, that covers all possible examples. I've no trouble at all establishing boundaries for private IPv4 addresses or for ULA-Cs, when it makes sense for whatever I'm doing. Is this a little like the RH0 thread? When it was a choice of disabling by default or removing entirely? My vote is, don't forward ULA-Cs by default, but let us use them as we used RFC 1918. It was also my vote when we were discussing site-local. If we get more restrictive about ULA-Cs, my bet is that something else will morph to take their place (and the place of site-local addresses). I guess people just like to have this tool. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
