> I'm not sure that I think a lot of an argument that goes "well, someday > someone might misuse it, so we'd better not have it at all", but that's > not important for now.
I don't think much of such arguments either To me arguments of the form "people need to solve problem X, and if we don't give them a way to do it that is friendly to the network they'll do it in a way that might not be friendly, so we'd better solve problem X" are much more convincing. There are several problems meeting this description - renumbering and routing between private sites being two that are handy. > What matters here, is that "global" addresses from a non routable prefix > have all of the same problems (they are identical, other than the bit > pattern that makes up the prefix). I think this is right. actually I think SLs with a site-id may actually be preferable than a global with a non-routable prefix, because the SL may be more easily distinguished from a normal address than the global. mainly I want a solution to the problem. apps need to be able to do address referrals and right now the algorithm for selecting which address to use is little better than a guess. anything we can do to make this faster or more reliable is a good thing, and SLs with site-ids are better for this than SLs without site-ids. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
