>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:48:54 -0500,
>>>>> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I would say, hoping this does not cause another flame, that the issues
>> of site-local are not crucial for the deployment of IPv6.
> I respectfully disagree. I think it's critical that we solve this
> issue; otherwise IPv6 will not support more applications than
> NATted IPv4.
I don't think so, but I don't think I can convince you on this point.
In order to avoid additional confusion, I'll stop here. (And you
don't have to convince me on this. I don't stick to the view as long
as we can really make a consensus on the site-local usage without
wasting time.)
> We seem to have near-consensus on discouraging site-locals except
> in a few corner cases.
I cannot be that optimistic according to the divergent discussion
we're seeing, but if we can really make a consensus, it would of
course be the best.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
