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.