> That being said, I have contradictory / ambiguous feelings about the
> omission of "SLA". Here's the contradiction:
>
> - On one side, since you explicitly kill TLA and NLA but not SLA, it is
> permitted to think that SLA is not completely dead, which suits me fine
> since my position is that although moving it to policy was a good idea,
> killing the notion of site boundary was not.
>
> - On the other side, if SLA is not dead it's not alive either, which
> makes it a zombie I guess. This is not good, and one of these nights,
> when the moon is full, it will rise from the grave like in Michael
> Jackson's "thriller" and come haunt us.
>
> Therefore, we have three options for SLA:
> 1. Don't change the text and keep it a zombie.
> 2. Kill it (which I don't like).
> 3. Spare it; the idea being that what we want to do is move it to policy
> but don't kill the notion that a site boundary exists. This is what RIRs
> call a "soft" or "semi-hard" boundary.
I think the "SLA" field in 2374 has been replaced by the "subnet ID" field
in addr-arch-v3. It probably makes sense to make this clear by
adding a note e.g.
The SLA (subnet local aggregator) field in RFC 2374 remains in
function but with a different name in [ADDR-ARCH]; its new
name is "subnet ID".
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
