Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|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.
Let me suggest a very simple way to do just that. Stop trying to eliminate
site-locals and scoped addressing. Instead, apply your efforts to defining
and standardizing the new/better mechanism(s) that will provide the same
functionality. Once those new mechanisms have reached a level in the standards
process sufficient to make folks comfortable that they are not just temporary
diversions you will probably find it much easier to eliminate site-locals.
|If we can agree to deprecate ambiguous SLs, we can then
|invent a non-ambiguous replacement for the next version of the
|addressing architecture.
Agreeing to deprecate site-locals is neither necessary nor sufficient to allow
us to invent a replacement. By implying this condition you are perpetuating
the discussion loop that you seek to break.
Dan Lanciani
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
