> > similarly, it's not the case that SLs only affect networks that > > use them if SLs are widely used. > > => Yes, but my point is, this will happen independently > of deprecating a bitstring. The /16 itself is meaningless; > what we're arguing about is the use. So removing a /16 > will not change anyone's mindset, it will just make > things more unpredictable.
well, there's no way to make a range of bit patterns cease to exist - that's even less feasible than willing the tide to go away. nor, as I've said several times, do I advocate re-allocating that range of bit patterns for any other purpose, or even declaring that they must not be used. it seems to me that the real question is whether we should continue to promote the idea that SLs are good for any kind of general-purpose use by applications (say for security), or whether we should discourage such use. if we can discourage use of SLs except in isolated networks or other rare corner cases, we'll avoid most of the potential harm that can come from them. > => Exactly, there is clearly no concensus on that. > > > They can also be discouraged. A BCP that discourages > > uses of SLs except in certain narrow cases and explains why is probably more > > useful than a BCP that tries to explain exactly when SLs cause problems > > and when they don't. Of course, it's quite possible to have both. > > => So let's have a shot at a BCP. It seems like > a more productive step than the infinite loop that > we're in right now. indeed. I actually think we might be getting somewhere. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
