Eliot Lear wrote: > >>... > >>Access control is also useful, and a simple form of access > >>control will be needed in IPv6. However, site-local > >>addresses are a poor form of access control for two reasons: > >> > >> - Site-local boundaries need to be at routing area > >> or AS boundaries (not convenient). > > > > > > This is bogus nonsense. > > Your answer does not really deserve a response. You're guilty of the > very thing you accuse Margaret of. I'm curious as to how you > would draw > the boundaries.
Is it really necessary to point out that aligning a site-local boundary with an existing routing boundary (AS or Area) that the network manager has established is *extremely* convenient? Those boundaries exists for operational reasons of filtering routing information. SL is about a well-known prefix for routing filters, ergo aligning SL with an area or AS border is the natural thing to do. Claiming otherwise only serves to distribute FUD. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------