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?
We need to break out some of it regardless. If everyone recalls, I pointed out that pieces of the scoped addressing architecture still needs to be done in order to support the scoped multicast addresses.
I believe we can progress on three topics: - Ambiguity - Convexity / defining the site borders. - Tuning the compromise.
I can comment on the convexity issue. Section 5 of the scoped addressing architecture has the following:
Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing
perspective, i.e., packets sent from one interface to any
other interface in the same zone are never routed outside
the zone.No one has objected to it. I have implemented the routing of scoped addresses. I can guarantee convexity in the protocol. Does it work? Yes. Is it a performance hit? Absolutely. And as Alex pointed out in another message, the complexity gets worse when scope boundaries have to be reflected in area borders.
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.
Quite an insulting comment.
Regards, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
