Ok, I am behind on email....I think that we should stop calling these addresses "site-local", as that is prone to confusion. We would create a separate set of globally-unique/provider-independent (GUPI? Pronounced "guppy" or "goopy", depending on how much you like them? :-)) addresses for use as local addresses in Internet connected sites.We could still have site-local addresses (FECO::/10), which can be used for disconnected networks (and perhaps other cases -- we haven't really decided how widely to use them yet). If we limit them to disconnected sites, they could be treated exactly like global addresses by all nodes. If we also allow them to be
....but how on earth did we end up in this discussion? From what I remember of the voting in Atlanta we had consensus for a limited version of site-locals...not creating a separate address structure? I mean if we are concerned about an allocation for GUPI we could use ::/0 right? It's not going to leak to the Internet anyway....
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
