> From: Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se> > | is also functionally indistinguishable from the talk about IPv8 and the > | foolisness of those someone likes to call "legacy internet engineers." > > That is a bit below the belt isn't it? It's one thing to step up to > the mike and claim to channel Keith Moore but to be accused of beeing > functionally equivalent to a troll is a different kettle of fish > altogether. At this point, what other purpose is there in repeating the discussion in this list or by the appeal to the IESG? Unless the IETF repudiates BCP 5, aren't we stuck site local addresses forever? Even if the IETF did move RFC 1918 to "Historic" and publish a new BCP saying that the evils of site locals are unnecessary in an IPv6 Internet, wouldn't we still be stuck with site local addresses forever? Why doesn't the advice given the IPv8 inventor apply in this case? Why isn't the next step writing RFCs proving the evils or virues of site local addresses instead of yet another series of ever more irrelevant polemics for and against? The statements about bogus queries of the DNS roots from RFC 1918 addresses or for PTR RRs for RFC 1918 addresses are examples of irrelevant arguments. How would deprecating or outlawing IPv6 site local addresses affect that problem now or ever? Why will the network operators who leak such noise change anything if the IETF says they shouldn't use IPv6 site local addresses? There are things that could be done that would control that DNS noise problem, but those actions do not include rehashing the evils and virtues of IPv6 site locals here. 15 years ago a defining difference between the IETF and the ISO was that the IETF cared about what happens in practice and the ISO cared about what happens in theory. As far as I can tell, the IPv6 site local discussion on both sides is only about moot theories. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com