Ted Hardie wrote: > There is a long and "interesting" history here, but it isn't > directly > relevant > to this discussion. I think it would be valuable to focus the > discussion on Site Local, > rather than on RFC 1918 space. The reason for bring 1918 into the discussion is that prior to NAT, there was a market demand for private address space. That demand hasn't gone away, and the non-NAT users of that space are completely disenfranchised in this discussion because they have seen no need to worry about it given there is a comparable space defined for IPv6. > I think you may underestimate how much trouble this might cause in > applications. > As Dave Crocker noted in response to Margaret Wasserman's > presentation to the APPs Open Area meeting, applications have > been designed so that > they > do not know and don't need to know anything about network > topology. > If you > require applications to understand the consequences of different > unicast address > scopes, you are changing a pretty fundamental assumption. > While it is > theoretically > possible to change that assumption, it is a major piece of > work, and I > believe that > the "sense of the room" was that the advantages of Site Local > were not > worth that > amount of work. I am not arguing that every app need to know about topology. If this is such a big deal, we should simply fix the API so that by default it only returns global scope addresses, then add a new function for those apps that are interested in the limited scope. This doesn't sound like rocket science, and the arguments against it are coming across like 'we don't want to change because it is too much work'. Rather than argue that nobody can ever use a new feature, the basic approach should be that you don't have to unless you want to. > As you note, this is subject to discussion and > confirmation on > the mailing list and, ultimately, to the consensus of the IETF as a > whole. And it has yet to be formally raised by the chairs on the WG list, so if it gets to IETF last call, it will be ripe for an appeal. Tony > > Margaret's presentation, for those not at the APPs open area, was > derived from her > draft, found at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact- > 02.txt. > See especially section 3.7.