Re: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> ULAs are only really needed with nested CPEs, because if there's only a 
> single CPE you can use link locals.
The first part of the sentence is debatable.  The last part is wrong. 
Many applications just don't work if you use link-local addresses. 
(As a side point, could one CPE even reliably know if there are other 
CPEs?)
FWIW, my belief is that the link-local addresses should never need to 
be used by humans who can't describe the TCP connection establishment 
procedure.  The implication of what you suggest would imply otherwise. 
The pain with multi-interface hosts and making apps deal with scope 
indexes is just too great.  I personally don't care for ULA that much 
myself, but if the alternative is to try to use v6 w/ link-local 
addresses, ULA at least on surface seems like a better approach.
--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings