> bring RFC 3513 site-locals as a candidate scheme if you'd like, > but it loses based on ambiguity and non-portability (to name > just two) straight out of the barrel.
Loses to what? Since when requirements equates a solution? Requirements are wishful thinking, no more. We don't throw away a published standard with running code from multiple vendors in exchange for the promise that _maybe_ someone will be able to produce a replacement that meets the requirements. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
