I think Brian should do this on the agenda as a necessity. Lets here from someone who can tell us how they implemented it and also is a routing engineer and obviously can disclose to us details which I know well we cannot always do here in public.
This should be a priority agenda item not to kill SLs but to learn from this implementors experience. Now I am sure my colleagues on either side do not disagree that this is important. I also think Mark speaking on his DNS methods would be of value too. As the DNS part is quite important. In fact lets have a technical meeting on issues and not status updates of drafts. /jim [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:bkhabs@;nc.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:02 PM > To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Cc: Richard Draves; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Limiting the Use of Site-Local > > > > > Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > > could you comment on routing code? (RIPng, OSPFv3) i > still think > > it's way too tough to support multi-sited node. > > Not that the chairs have finalized the agenda, but I am > planning on presenting what it took me to get a site-border > router coded and running. If you want to request a certain > level of detail, let me know. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
