On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Dan Lanciani wrote: > |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?
Look at Christian Huitema's mail today. The only thing this can't provide is global routability. > I'm all in favor of unique site locals, > but I don't see how they eliminate the need to deal with scopes. I'm not sure why we'd have to be able to kill 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. I don't see any significant problems which would prevent this, even though we may still want to prevent the use of these site-locals to disconnected or semi-disconnected sites. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
