Margaret, >> Michel Py wrote: >> Why don't you simply make this a requirement? I have >> heard many times that issue about the convexity although >> I don't remember opposition to coupling the site boundaries >> with the AS or routing area.
> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > We probably would have... Except that around the time that > we actually formulated the correct solution, the WG started > doubting the validity of site-border routers and started > considering various alternatives for limiting site-local > usage. > The scoped addressing architecture has basically been > on-hold ever since, waiting for us to make up our collective > minds about site-locals. > If the consensus to deprecate them does not hold, I'm not > quite sure what we are going to do... We certainly don't > have consensus to do any further work on site-locals, To the contrary, I think this is the only consensus we have. First, this "consensus" on deprecation (if there is one which remains to be seen) does not exist for two big reasons: 1. Most of the votes were taken without knowing what it really meant. It's a consensus on vaporware. Note that this is not a criticism; Bob and you obviously had something else in mind and if there is something you failed it's only that you did not have the right inspiration when you had to improvise and that you allowed a few agitators in the room bully you into this vaporware instead of sticking to the plan. In the pot calling the kettle black dept. I would say that you did not pay enough attention to room dynamics and too much to your presentation :-( 2. I don't see how any consensus can be reached without a detailed explanation about the consequences on the scoped architecture. Second, by your own account we do need to prepare documents about what to do next. Call it deprecation if you want what I call it is that we have more work to do on site-locals and on the scoped architecture. > and it isn't clear how we can ever finalize the scoped > addressing architecture without some type of decision > on this issue. Perhaps we can break out the > non-contentious parts and advance those parts? I believe we can progress on three topics: - Ambiguity - Convexity / defining the site borders. - Tuning the compromise. Unfortunately this requires people that are for IPv6 and not against and that are willing to compromise. I regret to report that at this point I count only three: Bob Hinden, you and me. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
