Mika Liljeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> > Great. Let's work on that problem now.
|>
|> Yes, of course we should. But, I think we can not get real force behind
|> such work before we _first_ agree Site Local is not solving this
|> problem, and we therefore agree Site Local should go away.
|
|Forgive me for being cynical, but another way to phrase the above is
|that the intent is to deny an existing solution to people who are
|content with it in order to force them to work on a new one.
You aren't being cynical enough. Once site-locals are gone there is
absolutely no reason to believe that there will be any work on a new
solution. We have had years and years to work on the routing/identifier
problem and it has gone nowhere. The new "solution" for stable internal
connections is going to be the same as the recently proposed "solution"
for multi-homing: send more money to your ISP and they will make their
links more reliable and refrain from renumbering you as frequently.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
