Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing
|"local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
[...]
|It appears to me that we have a very obvious and clear solution here, not
|even requiring any IANA/IESG action to get kickstarted.
A solution to which problem exactly? I'm all in favor of unique site locals,
but I don't see how they eliminate the need to deal with scopes. They are
extremely attractive in that they will allow us to interconnect sites with
dynamic tunnels, bypassing ISP restrictions on address count and stability.
By treating "native" aggregated addresses in effect as routes we can easily
build a distributed routing layer that scales indefinitely and hides all the
problems of unstable addresses from the applications.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
