Thomas,
I agree with your opinion and also support deprecating site locals. The
discussion you posted is clear and very persuasive.
However, I believe some of the resistance to deprecation may be the result of
people who have implementations and would rather not have to pay the costs of
ripping out that code and putting in something new. The logic here is the
following: IETF may make the decision to deprecate, but it is the individual
vendors that have to bear the cost of deprecation. If this is a widespread
concern (and I may be misinterpreting so it may not be), then I'd ask those with
this very practical concern to consider the alternative costs associated with
deployment problems that Thomas has outlined in the note below. The customer
service costs could easily dwarf the engineering costs of removing site locals,
should these deployment problems occur in practice.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Why I support deprecating SLs
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
