>> Michael Thomas wrote: >> So it seems to me that what's at issue here is what >> is the lesser of evils.
>> Keith Moore >> I think this is a bit over-simplistic. Just because an >> address prefix is globally unique does not mean it will >> be widely advertised in routing tables, especially when >> such prefixes are easily distinguished from globally >> routable prefixes. Maybe, maybe not. We just don't know. Although I am not opposed in principle to site IDs in SL addresses, having this feature in the addressing architecture _now_ is a walking hazard. kre has convinced me to keep fe80::/10 instead of reducing it to fe80::/48 keeping the door open, but I oppose doing something about it now. About the lesser of evils, we don't have to make that choice either. There are other models being developed, have a sneak preview at: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
