Robert Elz writes:
> Addresses there are still constrained - I don't get allocated one which
> I get to keep forever, no matter what, which is what SL addresses give me
> (with or without some higher layer identifier embedded in them).
> So, as an alternative to SL, they don't work, regardless of how good
> they may be as global addresses. Of course, they also weren't designed
> (I believe) as an alternative to SL, so this is probably no surprise.
In the good old days, wasn't it rather common
for clueless newbies to slavishly number their
networks 192.6 or somesuch which was what they
found in the network administrator manual examples?
They worked just great up until the time they
wanted to connect to the real net, right?
Assuming that you _never_ want to globally
advertise that prefix -- which is what site
locals are intended for -- does it actually
make any difference which prefix you choose? Why
does IETF have to sanction one? Why not just
let people make their own decisions? It's not
like there's any more or less work if they
change their minds, right?
BTW: isn't there already an implicit "site local"
address space for v6 with net 10 v4 mapped
address?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
