NO -- Do not deprecate site-local unicast addressing
- Site-locals should be retained for disconnected sites.
- Site-locals should be retained for intermittently connected sites.
- Before deprecating site-locals for disconnected sites, well defined
alternative address block should be RFC'ed, not to rewind the history.
--
Site-Local address seems to be the nearest candidate to be used
as ``local'' (locally used without interconnection to the Internet)
address. (In IPv4, so called ``private address'')
``Local'' address is quite useful tool for operators of enterprise's
network to provide good security for the users within the enterprise's
network.
In old days, I've heard that IPv4 global address was used as ``local''
address, undergroundly, before RFC-1918 was made.
Deprecate of Site-Local Address without defining alternative for
``private'' address, in previous, may cause the history to rewind
again.
May turn to ``Yes'', if any *private* address block is defined
as RFC *before* deprecate of Site-Local Address, and the *block*
could be used freely, as RFC-1918 in IPv4 world.
Just my comments follows;
--
It is quite *hopeless* that ISPes will deliver ``private address''
for users, without fee.
At IPv4 world, to my poor understanding, ordinary ISP may not assign
me any global address, if I'm not the customer of the ISP.
--
Wataru Kawakami, Japan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
