Charlie, > Charles E. Perkins > 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.
Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me and I will support it. I will try to sneak mine in as a complement to yours. If it takes too much time or does not reach consensus I'll withdraw it. I would suggest to reserve a handful of /16s out of FEC0::/10 for future use in any case. Let me emphasize again that none of this stuff goes anywhere is there is no default enforcement of non-routability along the lines that Bob Hinden, Christian Huitema and myself have contributed, and I have not heard many comments about that part. I guess I'll try to convince on this geo GUPI thing until we have consensus on non-routability. About my proposal of using geography to allocate globally unique site-locals instead of Charlie's sequential, it does not bring anything to the table sort-term, but it could in the longer term. It all boils down to someone wanting to undertake allocating them according to: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt I personally think that RIRs should be involved in this, but are there any other takers? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
