Brian McGehee write: > NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing > > - Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites. If > not SL, then > a mechanism needs to be adopted that can provide a private means of > selecting from a private address space that is "reserved" for this > function. 2002 is not a working alternative. > - Site-locals should be retained for intermittently connected sites. > - Site-locals should be retained as a means for internal > connections to > survive global prefix renumbering.
All of the above will make the address not unique. Have fun merging your networks. > - Other (please specify). Continually changing the specs will only > further alienate those that refuse to adopt. Not offering > equivalents to what exists today (rfc 1918) will accomplish the same. > (and do we really want to put all the NAT vendors out of business? ;-) > "Necessity drives ingenuity." Here you are already levelling NAT with SL. If you already intend to NAT, stay with IPv4, you will have the same problems and still won't get back the end to end connectivity which was one of the major things IPv6 was built for. Or we could just do IPv6 with 32bits again... Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
