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

[Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>]

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 17:52:36 Pekka Savola, you wrote:
> 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.

I am in total agreement here.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont