"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is ample evidence to support the fact that the customer (the > network administrator) wants, if not site-local, at least something that > provides what site-local does; and that they will continue using them > the way they see fit regardless of the fact that the IETF could try to > restrict their use or not. Keep the customer happy.
It would be good if this WG could come to some sort of understanding/consensus of what it is that the "customer" wants per the above "something that provides what site-local does". Understanding this might well allow us to: - scope SL usage to acheive that goal (but not other things that are more complicated and less crtical), or - refute the argument that SL actually achieves this, or - provide a better solution that meets the actual needs without necessarily even using SLs. Do you have some specifics you can cite here? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
