Keith Moore wrote: > your understanding is incorrect. the question posed at the > meeting was > quite clear. and yes, the plurality of opinions in the room was so > overwhelmingly in favor of deprecating site local (even if it's > something people are already using) that it is inconceivable > that this > is not indicative of WG consensus. This has not been discussed on the WG mail list, so despite your apparent limited ability to conceive of valid objections, they do exist. > > site local is broken. it creates far more problems than it > solves, and > it cannot be fixed. it's just taken people awhile to realize it. Trying to use SL for routing between sites is what is broken. The space identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking whatever addresses they could find in documentation. SL was set aside because there are people that either want unrouted space, or don't want to continuously pay a registry to use a disconnected network. It is far cheaper to train an app developer (though there may be an exception or two) to deal with it than it is to fix all the ad-hoc solutions that people will come up with to replace SL. > > of course, the SL prefix will not be re-allocated to other purposes, > and nothing stops those who are already using SL from > continuing to do > so. but the idea that hosts, apps, routers, DNS, etc. should > special-case site-local addresses is dead. and good riddance. Again, this is not a trival issue and there has been no discussion of it on the WG mail list. The decision has NOT been made. Tony