Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Tony, allowing an interface to have two addresses: > - One that is globally routable and globally accessible, > and > - One that is stable and local, > is _exactly_ what I am proposing. > However, I am proposing that there is _no reason_ why > the stable, local addresses have to be ambiguous.
These are worthy goals and I like them very much. However, given the history, I think you put them in the wrong order. I would like to see: 1. - One that is stable and local and not ambiguous. then 2. - One that is globally routable and globally accessible. Although there is nothing that says that 1 needs to be delivered before 2, I will remind everyone that the quest for 2 has started 10 years ago and that we still have to see a result. As of 1, it has its own set of challenges, one being that there must be some kind of architectural limitation to prevent it to become 2 with a routing table explosion. I will post soon more details about what I think is required to achieve 1. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
