Vernon Schryver wrote:
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.
Without getting into the other points of this argument, let me suggest
that Vernon is correct on this point, and in as much as we think
site-locals are bad we must provide a better alternative. In order to
do that we must address the underlying needs for site-locals. Many have
written at length on this subject, but it all seems to boil down to this:
We need a way for sites to be internally stable even when their
relationship to the world around them changes for whatever reason.
This goes to the heart of identity and service location. In as much as
we can address this problem we would do much to nullify the arguments
for site-locals. IMHO this is where the IETF, IRTF, and other bodies
should put our efforts.
Eliot