Tony, "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The discussion that should have happened first is 'what alternatives do > we have to deal with the requirements that network managers are using SL > to deal with?' Without a clear replacement, and with comments that some > real problems are 'uninteresting', the network manager will insist on > keeping the current tool. You have said a number of times now that network managers want and need SLs. Question: Do you believe that if we keep SLs, this implies that we will indeed need to complete the work on multi-site nodes and that multi-site nodes will become necessary in practice to deal with what I expect the common practice of nodes being in multiple sites simultaneously (as I described in an earlier note)? (One of the things that happened at the SF meeting was that a number of people expressed skepticism at the viability of a limited usage "compromise" where we could use SLs in a limited fashion.) Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
