Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:32:10 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If site-local addressing is "really insurance", and may "fade away" later,
| would this be an argument for:
|
| - Moving site-local out of the base IPv6 specs
No, insurance is only useful if you have it from the start. Planning
to leave it in the background, and then pay for it after things break
simply doesn't work...
| - Making site-local implementation optional?
That one I have no problem with. If implementations don't want to
bother with it, or with all the possible ways they can be used (mult-site
nodes, etc) that's just fine.
For some uses I would have no problems using nodes that don't support
SL addressing, for others, such an implementation would rule itself out
of contention immediately.
On the other actually requiring multi-site nodes is something that I
might never need (and very few sites might) so that one might become
more of a speciality item.
kre
ps: I also agree with (I think) everthing that is in Tim Hartrick's message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
