> > Adjacent nets that both use SLs is an interesting (potentially > > problematic?) architecture - I would be interested in finding > > out about > > deployment experience with that case. > > This is exactly the case that Keith is concerned about. There is no > magic here, in this situation the address space needs to be coordinated, > or a nat is required. Since we are all trying to avoid nat, the hammer > approach is to simply ban SL. My argument is that it is more pragmatic > to simply document the failure modes.
I certainly think it's worthwhile to document the failure modes. I'm not at all sure it is more pragmatic to do "simply" that than to discourage SLs more forcefully - it's certainly easier to do the "simple" thing but I doubt that the result would be considered successful. I don't want to end up with lots of networks that use SLs and can't support apps because (as happened with NATs) network admins weren't sufficiently aware of just how much SLs break apps. (i.e. there's still a significant gap between documenting the failure modes and actually understanding how much this hurts - for the same reason that reading my "what nats break" web page doesn't tell you which of the apps that you want to run will not run.) as has been pointed out several times, SLs will be attractive to many network admins simply because they exist and they look like what many people are predisposed to think of as the "right" solution. so there's a bit of an uphill battle to discourage them, but I really think it's what we need to do. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
