> What many are missing here is that this is not about 1918 style > addressing. This is about the fact that addresses do not have the same > visibility and accessibility throughout the network. no, it's not just about that. you are the only one who keeps insisting that. you seem to be trying to conflate two different notions of scope. IMHO it's clearer if you talk about those kinds of scope in separate terms; which is why I prefer to talk about ambiguous addresses on one hand vs. packet filtering on the other. It happens that SLs combine the two, but there's no inherent need to do so. > Our task is to look at the overall system the way that network > managers really run (or want to run) it, then figure out what it will > take to make that happen. funny, I thought our primary task was to design a network that could support useful applications. of course, managability is an important aspect of being able to support useful applications, but it is not reasonable to constrain the v6 network design to only permit things that are compatible with network managers' assumptions about how to operate v4 networks. v6 is more different than v4 than most people realize. so no, I don't accept your definition of "our task"; in fact I fundamentally disagree with it as stated. > I don't know what a solution looks like, but I do know that continuing > to bury our collective head in a dark place will not make the problem > that needs solving go away. And as long as that's the way you characterize users and applications writers with genuine needs, you're not going to be able to contribute to solving the problem.