Keith Moore wrote: > the closest thing we have to a workable solution is to find a > way to give every site that connects to another network a > global prefix > (whether it's globally connected or not) and have applications > ignore the SLs (at least for purpose of referrals). and if you do > that, there is little point in having SLs at all except for > isolated networks - they just complicate management and DNS > etc. for the networks that use them.
It doesn't matter how many times you write this, you can not make it become true. Brian keeps pointing out the simple case of an intermittently connected network getting a different prefix on each connect, but you keep ignoring it. STABLE ADDRESS SPACE IS A MAJOR APPLICATION REASON TO HAVE SL. Also, as I have said multiple times, getting rid of SL does not create PI space. When PI space is available, people will most likely recognize that it is easier to deal with than SL, and will naturally migrate. Even when it is available, that does not automatically create a reason to restrict the use of SL. It will always be easier to filter a short /10 than to maintain a long list of access controls at the border. THIS IS A MAJOR OPERATIONAL REASON TO USE SL. It is appropriate that we have a document describing the impact on multi-party apps using literal referrals, and another on guidance on DNS configurations. We have discussed the first many times, and the second is nothing more than formalizing what people have been already doing in the face of 1918 space. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
