Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Brian E Carpenter writes:
> > > Eliot,
> > >
> > > That seems to me to be orthogonal. I agree that it would be good to see
> > > renumbering support (maybe it's a v6ops item??). But that doesn't destroy
> > > the value of Bob's proposal.
> >
> > I disagree. What we seem to be dancing around with
> > here is an aversion to dealing with the actual
> > requirements of people who deploy networks. Even
> > though Bob's proposal polishes the site local
> > t***, it's still a dangerous stopgap and doesn't
> > address _why_ this requirement for stability in
> > the here and now is so strong, and the fact that
> > we don't have a credible answer.
>
> "Why" is addressed in draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt
> That document may need more work, but it certainly attempts to
> answer the question, convincingly to my mind.
The problem is that this draft proceedes from the
premise that the answer is consing up limited
range addresses. That's incorrect and not
helpful. We need to start by determining what the
*requirements* are, and only then outline what the
range of solutions are, and what their problems
and possible consequences are. Until we can get an
consensus on what we need to do, and what the
engineering tradeoffs are, we will never come to
closure.
That in a nutshell is why I have a problem with
the religiosity on both sides of this argument.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
