I'm not sure I can answer your question, so I'll simply state my personal option.
I reread the IPv6 address architecture draft before my last reply and it clearly states that not all e2e connections will succeed. That is, some addresses only work within a limited scope (link-local, site-local, and global). I believe this limited scope view matches the reality, were network managers and institutions block certain connections. I also believe this is a correct architectural position to take. Finally I agree that if this were the commonly accepted view, then discussions on how to achieve this goal would take place.
Rich
At 01:58 PM 4/3/03 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
[snip snip snip]
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).
------------------------------------
Richard A. Carlson e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Research Section phone: (630) 252-7289 Argonne National Laboratory fax: (630) 252-4021 9700 Cass Ave. S. Argonne, IL 60439
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
