Dan Lanciani wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > |I think we should clear the desktop first, by getting rid of ambiguous > |site-local address space, and then discuss possible new solutions. > > Could you explain why you think this is the correct order?
Because I can't see any other way of getting the WG out of its perpetual discussion loop on this topic. > To me it seems > completely wrong. Eliminating site-locals will probably require changes in > much the same areas that any new solution will require. Why edit everything > twice? Who said that? We have just shipped the addressing architecture (with ambiguous SLs) to the RFC Editor. We know we have to make a new version. If we can agree to deprecate ambiguous SLs, we can then invent a non-ambiguous replacement for the next version of the addressing architecture. > Once site-locals are gone there will be very little incentive for > those who dismiss their uses to look at alternate solutions since they do > not recognize the associated problems as problems. I think you are misreading a lot of the "deprecate" votes, including mine. We certainly aren't done even if we reach consensus on deprecation. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
