In your previous mail you wrote:
| PS: to put a random thing in the unused part of site-locals was proposed
| twice and rejected twice...
It was rejected once, when I made it, because it wasn't really a very
well thought out proposal (the rejection was largely based upon
administrative kinds of issues, rather than anything related to IPv6
as a protocol, etc).
=> I believe Christian Huitema still reads this list so can comment.
The second time, I don't think it was rejected, it just sort of fizzled
out, or that's how it appeared to me. I'm pretty sure the draft will
have long expired, but I still regard the proposal as open.
=> the second time was more recent so I remember exactly what happened:
Paul Francis' proposal was killed by Steve Deering with an incredible unfair
question about "what is a site?"
As nobody withdraws drafts (we just let them expire) it is hard to analyze
old failures...
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: my opinion is site-locals should be reserved to never connected (never =
today and at any time in the future) not-gigantic (i.e. one site is enough)
organizations. In fact for unicasts we don't need more than link-locals
and globals...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
