Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:00:15 -0700
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| trying to solve a routing problem by an ill-understood addressing
| hack.
This is the second time you have said that, and it doesn't get any more
accurate with the re-telling.
SL addresses are only a second order symptom of a routing problem, and
are most certainly not any kind of attempt to solve it.
The closest they come to that is that they're an attempt to cope with the
current best solution to the routing problem that anyone has been able to
find - that is, to solve routing, we're requiring topologically meaningful
addresses, and as topology isn't stable, addresses can't be stable either.
If you have some other solution to the routing problem, and can even
suggest a direction that might allow non-topological routing of an address
space of the order of 2^48 entries, then we're all waiting to hear it.
In the meantime, please recognise that those of us who have to live with
the consequences of the best solution currently available and if there's
no sanctioned way of getting at least local stable addresses, then we will
simply invent our own - "stealing" whatever address space is needed to
make it work.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
