Hi Jim, > > There needs to be a way to get an address when you don't > > have a provider. This means either scoped addresses as we > > have defined them already (and in multi-link locations, this > > means either site-local or multi-link subnet routers and > > link-local), or some sort of provider-independent address > > (note there are various types of these as well, depending > > upon whether we believe they should be explicitly > > non-routable, or privately routable between multiple > > non-connected 'sites'). > > I cannot see anyway to route site-locals across multiple > sites? Your not saying to do this are you?
No, I'm not. Site-locals should not be routed across sites. I was addressing the suggestion others have made which was to use some sort of yet-to-be-defined provider-independent addresses instead of site-locals in some situations. My point on that topic is that there are a range of different properties such addresses could have (one of which is that they may or may not be routable across sites). I believe at least some of the arguments people were having were the result of different unstated assumptions about what the properties of such addresses would be. > Part of the issue for all this mail is not to kill SLs but > to make sure we understand them and how to use them and how > to manage them and what their affect to users will be. That would be my preference as well. --Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
