% "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
%
% reasons += adds complexity to routing, forwarding, and network operations;
%
% --
% Alex Zinin
waxing nostalgic... IPv6 was supposed to be an enabler of a whole
raft of interesting new capabilities. based on your concerns, listed
above, IPv6 is going to be nothing more than IPv4 with larger address
space. if that is what we end up with, then IPv6 development might
be considered a waste of time. we could support the premise of IPv6
(10x16th nodes...?) using Paul Francis's nifty idea of a box that will
do address translation and never need to move away from a 32bit address
space.
IPv6 had (and perhaps still has) the ability to allow us to develop
alternative routing techniques, where aggregation is not the only
abstraction that is viable.
For me the vote (and it is a vote...) seems to break down along these
lines:
Yes - those who wish to maintain the status quo or have vested commercial
interests in shipping IPv6 product.
No - those who wish to explore the latent capabilities of IPv6.
as usual, YMMV and my understanding is likely flawed.
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
