On 2007-07-27 14:53, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
i have been against of the idea of - having addresses with different reachability, including site-local and ULA (which is zombie of site-local)I think we understand that you don't like this, but we did reach rough consensus in the ipv6 WG to define ULAs with complete understanding that global scope is not global reachability. Just to repeat the argument, reachability is set by router configurations so you cannot assume that *any* prefix has global reachability, whether it is PA, PI, or ULA.true, i know that. because of - BGP peering policies between ISPs - nationwide censorship/whatever - organization filtering/whatever you cannot really assume you have a full reachability towards the entire planet even if you are using global address (2000::/3). but the degree of reachability (or unreachability) is entirely different between site-local/ULA and global address. there's no comparison.
Fully agreed. But we don't know how to capture that in scope rules. I think that is the basic problem. Brian