Hi Scott, > But, for what it's worth, I do not think that there was sufficient > discussion of the option of deprecating SL addresses before > the consensus check was made. So, in a way, I think the consensus > was wrongly reached, even if I agree that consensus was reached. If the San Francisco meeting was the only time/place that the IPv6 WG had discussed the topic of what to do regarding IPv6 site-local addressing, then I might agree with you. However, this had been the most hotly debated and analyzed topic in the IPv6 WG for the previous two years. We had exchanged literally thousands of e-mail messages on this topic on the IPv6 list, and we had held lengthy discussions on this topic at several IETF meetings. In particular, Brian Haberman and Rob Austein presented information regarding site-locals in Atlanta: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/ipv6-5.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/slides/ipv6-6.pdf I also posted a lengthy draft on this topic in December 2002, entitled "The Impact of Site-Local Addressing in IPv6". This draft has since expired, but the lastest version can still be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt So, the discussion during the San Francisco IETF meeting was not the only information available to IPv6 particpants regarding this topic. Any active IPv6 participant should already have been reasonably well-informed regarding this topic before arriving in San Francisco. Margaret