> > => It has a better chance of working this time because: > > - No one expects addresses to become a scarce resource in our > > lifetime anyway > > > > - I haven't seen any plans by ISPs to charge based on > > the number of addresses. > > > > So, I don't think it's quite the same problem as with > > RFC1918. > > I agree that scarcity is not the issue. Rather, the end user > sees it as simpler to slap a NAT in the network and connect > rather than go through and renumber the network.
=> I completely agree that this is a possible scenario, but I also think that: 1. We will not eliminate stupidity or ignorance from the Internet. 2. The people that do that might have their reasons...I can't think of any and I wouldn't advice it, but...some people do. 3. Even if SLs were eliminated, what's going to stop someone from using _any_ bitstring for their internal addresses and when they want to connect to the Internet they will still throw a NATv6 on the edge. Why is this better? Deprecating site locals to aovid the scenario above is a futile attempt IMHO. Hesham > > Brian > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
