Alain Durand wrote: > ... > IMHO, what need to happen is the following: > > -1. Make an in-depth study of the consequences of introducing > addresses with different ranges.
This is not an introduction, they happened long ago ... > > -2. Realize that if the issue at stake here has more to do > with getting > addresses > than with their actual scope/range, something probably can be > done working with the registries. It might be a cheaper path > than changing the protocols. After all, IPv6 addresses > are plentiful, > we should have easy access to them! This is not just a registry issue, the effect of random PI addresses on the global routing system also has to be factored in. > > What to do with Site Local addresses in the meantime is a non > issue for me. > > - Alain. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
