> > ... in other words, we need to abandon this idea > > that a host can have an arbitrary number of addresses with > > varying scopes and lifetimes and connectivity, > > and it's up to hosts/apps to sort out which one is best to > > use. ... > > We have heard you say this many times over, but you are refusing to hear > that other people have figured out how to use them for their specific > app or topology.
Just because some apps happen to work with SLs or are easily modified to work with SLs does not mean that SLs are either harmless or justified. > Since you have identified the case that a multi-party > app can't do the right thing when the name/address resolution is only > capable of a single scope, you should write a BCP to that effect. I have no interest in describing how to impair apps to deal with an impaired network. I find it far saner, and hopefully more productive, to keep the network from being impaired in the first place. > Otherwise your argument ammounts to a demand that we not allow doing > more than what we always have done, simply because it is easier. No, I'm arguing for a more flexible Internet, one that can support a wider range of applications with less complexity. more warts does not equate to more flexibility, and SL is a good example of a wart that decreases flexibility. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
