% Hi Margaret;
%
% Let me try an rephrase my question. I would like to know if there is
% consensus on the architectural view that IPv6 should have addresses with
% different scopes? This architectural view means that some addresses will
% not be usable for e2e communications in the global Internet. They will
% only be usable in specific area, zones, sites (whatever label you want to
% hang on the limited portion of the Internet where they work). I'm
% continuing to view this discussion, and the call for consensus, in the
% architectural sense, not the specific implementation laid down by your 3
% points. Is that your intent, or am I misinterpreting your consensus call?
%
% Again, I fail to see how deprecating site-local addresses (specifically the
% FEC0::/10 prefix) solves the underlying problem (e2e communications failing
% with some src/dst address pairs).
%
% Rich
I -really- REALLY should just shut up and let this die.
Rich, where is there the presumption that e2e communications
is restricted to the "global Internet" stated as an architectural
lema?
Certainly some applications were designed with e2e, always reachable,
endpoints in mind. Such presumptions are stressed with true
mobility (not the tunneled back to home agent style), untethered
and sometimes reachable networking that is evolving around us
e.g. MANET, dccp, HIP, mDNS, zeroconf, et.al.
Perhaps if the architectural view was e2e, sometimes reachable,
then the bias against SL or its ilk would be mitigated.
What do you think?
--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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
