> >> 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.
so is having SL addresses without site IDs. it's just that in one case the hazard is to the routing system, and in the other case the hazard is to apps and their ability to interoperate. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
