Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > The IPv6 WG putting a "MUST" in a spec does not put > code in a router.
That is an interesting point of view, for sure. It has worked so far, why would this change? > There are already implementations of IPv6 that do > not "black-hole" this set of TBD globally-unique, > provider-independent addresses, so our solution must > not depend on all routers black-holing packets > to/from these addresses. Fortunately these will have their software updated many times in the next few years, and the solution does not depend on _all_ routers. The success of the solution depends on the comfort level of network administrators in assessing that the _majority_ of routers implement the recommendation. > In order to be useful, globally-unique/provider-independent > addresses need to be routable. To be maximally useful, the > routing boundaries for these addresses need to be set by > administrators, not automatically enforced at specific > routing protocol (or other) boundaries. I used *default* in my posting, obviously I should have used DEFAULT instead. The subject of this thread is "Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses", not creating a new PI space. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
