=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On l�rdag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> -When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in
|> the
|> way of solving the routing/identifier problem?
|>
|> -When (and how) did all the other reasons that have been advanced to
|> stymie
|> any work on the routing/identifier problem evaporate?
|
|<rant>
| From my point of view, as an apps person, people stopped looking at
|these alternatives when they found out they can force applications to
|have clue about routing topologies, force applications to use this clue
|to do clever source address selections, and more people started
|thinking Site Local was not only a solution to this, but also the magic
|pixie-dust which solves other problems as well.
|</rant>
I understand why you might think that (especially given the recent discussions)
but if you review the archives for the past few years I think you will see that
site-locals did not play a significant role in discouraging the development of
real routing/identifier solutions. Frankly I find it really disturbing that
the issues are being coupled this way.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
