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.