>>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:14:28 +0000,
>>>>> Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> ....but how on earth did we end up in this discussion? From what I
>>> remember of the voting in Atlanta we had consensus for a limited
>>> version of site-locals...not creating a separate address structure?
>>
>> as I recall, we had consensus for limiting site-locals,
>> as well as widespread support for the idea that PI globals were needed.
>>
>> it's not an either-or.
> if my memory serves me right we had consensus on limiting site-locals
> somewhat, i.e not pushing multi-site support.
> we also had consensus that _working_ on non-routable global PI
> addresses sounded like an interesting idea.
This is exactly what I have as the result of the meeting.
> until we see some real proposals on the table, there is nothing to
> reach consensus about with regards to GUPIs.
I agree. And, as the chairs just suggested, what we need at this
stage is a concrete proposal as an internet-draft. I guess we have
had enough discussion and we don't need more on the list.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
