I realize that there have been suggestions recently that you should always use a global address if one is available, but that's not a problem with scoped addressing--it's a way to deliberately break scoped addressing.
It is also a way to avoid breaking Mobile IP. And, it is a way to avoid losing your connection if the site becomes "concave" or fragments due to a router or link failure...
It is true that site-locals do not by their mere existence automatically protect a site against renumbering, but that is a straw man. Site-locals allow a site that cares to protect connections that it cares about. This is an important capability. Do not be so quick to dismiss it.
Do you really need site-local addresses as currently defined (ambiguous, scoped address) to achieve this? Or would it be better to have your own globally-unique, provider-independent prefix (perhaps assigned by a registry) that wouldn't require any special treatment from hosts, applications, etc. and that you could choose to filter at your firewalls?
Margaret
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
