Tony,
I am going to wait on replying to the "debate" aspect of this exchange, to
see if others have comments. I am posting now only to offer a
clarification:
TH> Either the addresses are ambiguous to the routing protocol, or it
TH> can deal with them. If they are ambiguous, there is no
way to pass
TH> them around, so the 'need' is fabricated at best.
Clearly that is not true for Site Local addresses, or they
would not be called Site Local. Clearly the idea behind Site
Local is that two different sites can use the same addresses,
while both sites are able to reach each other.
TH> This is part of the FUD & confusion propegated through the presentation
TH> to the apps area, as well as those who simply want to pretend that local
TH> scope addresses don't exist. The reality is that two networks that use
TH> ambiguous addresses can't just route to each other, because the routing
TH> protocol can't sort out the ambiguity.
Sorry for the confusion:
Site Local means that two sites need to be able to each use the same
addresses. If the two sites interact, they need to use some other set
of addresses. However Site Local is only an interesting construct if it
operates while a site that is using one is attached to the Internet and,
therefore, talking to others sites. When this occurs, obviously it is
essential that a site local address stay... local to that site.
However from the context of the larger Internet, the Site Local address
is ambiguous. (Your reply agrees to this point, so this is here only for
completeness.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>