Tony, Tony Hain wrote: ... > ... It is > incumbent on the IPv6 WG to deliver a viable PI replacement BEFORE > removing the only PI addressing model we have.
This is where we disagree. I think we have learnt since FEC0::/10 was defined (in 1995) that ambiguous PI space is *not* viable, as a result of the operational disaster of deploying RFC 1597/1918 space as defined in 1994. I think it's incumbent on us to deprecate this non-viable solution as quickly as possible, and then define something better. And I wish we'd seen this much earlier, since we now have to fix shipped products. (BTW, "deprecate" doesn't stop those products working.) As for whether we can do what the RRG has failed to do, of course not. But it seems fairly clear we can define unambiguous PI space. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
