Thus spake "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> > The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG > list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point > regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that > session. Issues most often move to the IETF list when a vocal minority object to a declaration of consensus by the WG chairs. If the WG chair would like to reopen the debate, I'm sure everyone will move back there. > In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed debate, > opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was reached. I > believe that if you had been in the room you would feel closer to that > consensus. I haven't seen anyone argue in favor of site-local addressing for the purposes of having explicitly scoped addresses, so you are correct in one sense. What I am seeing is debate over private address space and NAT, which many of us had expected site-locals to be useful for -- this email thread (and the one on routing-discussion) belies any claims of consensus on that. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking