Hello Michel, Agreed on all points. I take your point about discussion time to mean that we should not get into a situation where a simple solution would be blocked while a solution with more features is devised. The feature set should be simple enough to be proposed and agreed upon right away.
Regards, Charlie P. Michel Py wrote: > > Charlie, > > > Charlie Perkins wrote: > > Whatever the freebie allocation algorithm is, it > > has to be simple enough to be free. If it costs > > even $0.01, then that means paperwork for the > > consumer probably including even an invoice and > > managerial approval. > > Agreed. > > > My proposal is that we allocated them linearly -- > > starting at 1,000,000 or so and incrementing by one > > after each allocation. That's easy and effective. > > I would support any scheme that makes site-locals unique as long as the > non-reachability is enforced, but keep reading. > > > If you want something more structured,then that's > > solving a different problem and should be considered > > separately. One problem at a time, please! > > This makes sense, but the other side of this coin is that it might be a > good idea to kill two birds with one stone if it does not require aiming > for two years. > > In any case, the "one problem at a time" also applies to not trying to > solve the problem of global PI with unique site-locals..... > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
