Tony, I am going to wait on replying to the "debate" aspect of this exchange, to see if others have comments. I am posting now only to offer a clarification:
>> TH> Either the addresses are ambiguous to the routing protocol, or it >> TH> can deal with them. If they are ambiguous, there is no >> way to pass >> TH> them around, so the 'need' is fabricated at best. >> >> Clearly that is not true for Site Local addresses, or they >> would not be called Site Local. Clearly the idea behind Site >> Local is that two different sites can use the same addresses, >> while both sites are able to reach each other. TH> This is part of the FUD & confusion propegated through the presentation TH> to the apps area, as well as those who simply want to pretend that local TH> scope addresses don't exist. The reality is that two networks that use TH> ambiguous addresses can't just route to each other, because the routing TH> protocol can't sort out the ambiguity. Sorry for the confusion: Site Local means that two sites need to be able to each use the same addresses. If the two sites interact, they need to use some other set of addresses. However Site Local is only an interesting construct if it operates while a site that is using one is attached to the Internet and, therefore, talking to others sites. When this occurs, obviously it is essential that a site local address stay... local to that site. However from the context of the larger Internet, the Site Local address is ambiguous. (Your reply agrees to this point, so this is here only for completeness.) d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
