Margaret, >> Michel Py wrote: >> There is room for both models at the same, and "good >> enough" is not going to be good enough for everybody.
> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I would need to see a very compelling case for why two > types of globally-unique/provider-independent addressing > are needed before I would like to see two models. Reaching consensus. Pekka's model has generated some positive comments. > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I think that one of the benefits of globally-unique/ > provider-independent addresses over site-locals is that > it is possible to tell (when one is leaked in any of the > possible ways exactly where the address came from... > This would, of course, work best if the addresses were > actually unique, rather than mostly-unique. Agreed, identifying the source of the leak also requires that these addresses are registered somewhere (which is the model I proposed) and not randomly generated. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
