> > => Why is it gone ? Not everyone wants NATs and for those who > > do, deprecating SL addresses will not help. It will just make > > their (Network admins) behaviour less predictable. > > Maybe, but from a operator point of view, the advantage of > being early > on IPv6 is to enable your users to do peer-to-peer > services. There are > no new services I can launch just because I give out IPv6 > address, on > the contrary. There is most likely a higher cost involved.
=> I don't disagree with that, but I don't see the relevance to my statement. > > => Yes there is. The address size itself allows to do things > > that you can't do with v4. Check out the SEND WG for example > > or MIPv6, or address autoconf.... > > This are all services / functions I could do in IPv4 as > well. Perhaps > not with the IPv4 address header though. => I'll be very interested in seeing a proposal on secure ARP, MIPv4 RO or the final Zeroconf solution for IPv4 autoconf.... > > If you choose to use SL with globally routable addresses > > in the same network, you can get P2P. > > If I have globally routeable addresses in the first place > to identify > my network devices, why would I want SL? => If you don't want it, don't use it. No one is suggesting that every site must use them. If you give people > a tool - > they will use it, and eventually someone will hurt > themselves with it. => I don't think so. People will do what they want with whatever addresses they invent. Network admins are not kids. They are convinced that (in some cases) they need certain features. They will get there one way or another. You might disagree with their reasons or arguments, but there is no decision we take here that will change their minds immediately. > I am not resisting facts. I am trying to argue that we should learn > from mistakes. There are people who are using RFC1918 space > today and > are happy with it. There also a number of large > organizations that have > it and are very limited by it. I don't want us to give out > tools with > instructions for people with warnings on them. If they are > dangerous we > should not give them out at all. => Anything can be used in a dangerous way if people don't know what they're doing. So it is best to inform people, instead of giving them meaningless (to them) restrictions. > > I have still to see an argument as to what there is with SLs that I > can't do with globaladdresses? => Well, if after reading all the mails you still think so, don't expect one from me :) Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
