Tony, That's the first thing you said I fully agree with on this thread. I am willing to support this for sure. I don't agree with lots of other things but that's ok.
/jim [In matters of style, swim with the currents...in matters of principle, stand like a rock. - Thomas Jefferson] > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@;tndh.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:26 PM > To: 'Ralph Droms'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Default site-local behavior for routers > > > Ralph Droms wrote: > > ... > > 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. If we can just do that, we will be able to > put the effort into developing a PI approach with better > support for the multi-party app. > > Tony > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
