--On Friday, April 04, 2003 10:26:50 +0300 Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in a sense it would also be good to get feedback from ops folk of the > latter categories. Those do exist, but I assume *they* are ones that are > more rarely seen at the IETF (but also probably those who do not heed > what IETF says in any case). > > But regardless, it's still the question of doing it right rather than > "doing it the IPv4 way". Yes, that would be desirable, but perhaps hard to attain, both in terms of participion and compliance. Most "outside-ipng-people" I've spoken to lately immediately associate SL with RFC1918 and v4-NAT, in a conceptual way. They are in many cases using both these techniques, but only because it is not feasible for them to get address space enough for their networks. It is probably safe to say that this restriction will go away in v6. -- M�ns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
