Thomas Narten wrote:
Hi James.
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.
This I don't understand. AFAIK, there is little or no code to rip
out. And if the code is there, but no site-locals are actually
configured or assigned to nodes, any code related to site-locals
doesn't get executed and is harmless. So I don't see what problem
there is with deprecating them with regards to existing
implementations. I don't imagine anyone is going to say we need to put
wording in some spec that makes existing implementations that have
code related to site-locals be declared non-conformant. That would be
silly.
Do folks think this above is a significant issue?
So, as most of you probably know, I have implemented a router that
supports scoped addresses (unicast and multicast). If I still
supported that box, I would be quite happy to rip the support out.
If someone wants to see a presentation on what I did, go find the
proceedings from the routing area meeting in Atlanta.
I can see where implementations like John Bartas' could have
support issues when customers can't align code with RFCs. But,
I would rather deal with that scenario than trying to debug
operational problems with site locals.
I would like to hear from other people who have actually implemented
SL support, and I mean ALL of the support (routing/forwarding, apps,
dns, firewalls, mobility, etc.).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
