I've done a bit more thinking regarding my previous post. I am going to restate the things that I suggested, in case my previous message left anything un-clear. I would like to suggest that: - The idea of scopes be removed from unicast addresses. Why add the complexity of scopes? Is it not better to keep things simple? - The link-local address space (FE80::/10), or some other space, be available as "private use" address space, similar to what RFC 1918 is to IPv4. I realize that the current definition of the local-use addresses already provides this, but since I am suggesting to change that definition it seemed necessary to make this point. - All interfaces be required to have at least one unicast address assigned to them, instead of being required to have a link-local address in addition to any other addresses. If an interface is not configured with an address, and the host is unable to obtain an address from a DHCP server (or some other dynamic configuration protocol) for that interface, then the interface will be auto- configured with an address from the above-mentioned "private use" space (FE80::/10 or otherwise). Can anyone point out any practical scenarios for scoped addresses to be required, which could not be dealt with by having a "private use" address space available? After reading the discussion on site-local addresses, I think that unicast address scopes may be un-necessary. If I happen to be mis-understanding something, I welcome any explanations or pointers to previous discussions.