Keith Moore wrote: > ... > > I was not arguing against SLs with site-ids, just that we > should not try > > in any way to lead people down the path where those site-ids are > > perceived to be globally unique. > > I disagree in the strongest possible terms. > > It's absolutely insane to expect applications (that may spam more > than one site) to have to deal with ambiguous addresses.
Well any app that is generating 'spam' should be restrained.... You missed the point of what I was saying. Within the context of a private network of one or more sites, there should be no ambiguity because the local manager is in control of the proposed site-id bits. If two or more private networks want to join togther and form a larger private network, as long as they coordinate the site-id bits, there will still be no ambiguity. If an application wants to depart from the confines of a private network, it should not be using private addresses. We already have PA space for public use, and some activity around PI space. Since the scope of a private network is managed by the local administrator, there is no need make SL space globally unique. I agree it needs to by unique within a private network. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
