Bound, Jim wrote: > So if I read your view. Your saying. Control them but do > not revoke them? > > The question is can we control them then right? >
I was trying to say; comment on known problem areas, but nothing more. This is because we can't control their use, and even if we could, we might be cutting of a valuable service down the road. When we know there is a problem, like the use of SL with the current single scope DNS servers, we should point out the reasons developers should think twice before going there. > But if we can't figure it out or agree then that could be revoke? No. There are deployment models where SL is what the network manager wants, but those who are complaining on this list are not working in networks with those models. Before any discussion about removing them can take place, the people that want to use them need a voice. Tony > > I would hope we can control and not revoke. > > But as you know I don't believe they should have ever been > permitted in the first place in IPv6. Site-Locals and 1918 > are BOGUS that is not how to control what they wanted to do > in the first place. > > /jim > [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@;tndh.net] > > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:47 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > > > > I have a basic problem with this thread. We have a few people > > discussing fundamental changes in close to a vacuum. At best > > the result of this discussion should be a separate BCP, but > > before that happens operators of networks that actually use > > 1918 space need to be engaged to find out their requirements. > > > > The whole idea that SL should be revoked if a global is > > available is bogus. It is certainly reasonable for the > > manufacturer of light switches to only support SL/LL rather > > than potentially multiple global prefixes. There is no reason > > for those devices to interact across a scope boundary, so the > > peer nodes that may also need global access MUST keep their > > SL to interact in the limited scope. > > > > 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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
