Randy Bush wrote: > > It is time to get off this thread and back to real work. > Those who want > > SL removed should get 1918 moved to historic first > > complete red herring.
They are designed to serve the same purposes. Clearly the market has found several uses for 1918, so claiming any of those (except expanding the address space by reuse) are void in an IPv6 world is a bit academic. > > a socially better case of this herring would be to cure world > hunger first. > > we may not like 1918, but that does not mean we should > reproduce it to show > our dislike. There are uses for 1918, and life would have been good without NAT. We need to keep the real problem child in focus and not blame 1918 for the transgressions of NAT. Service providers and network managers clearly know the boundaries of their routing complex, and may find that using SL is a reasonable mechanism for SNMP and other management traffic, much as they use 1918 now. The issues raised on the thread have mostly focused on cases where the site boundary is not clear. When there is no clear boundary then SL shouldn't be used, just as you can't use 1918 in those cases now. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
