Michel, My bottom line on this, I think, is that this version of scope has very limited use - it doesn't deal with the situations that my services colleagues see every day, and it is not something that middleware can make any use of. At most, it allows for some defaults in firewall rules and address selection rules, but those can be set up on well-known prefixes just as easily as on a scope value.
Brian Michel Py wrote: > > On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > > I think it does, because it makes "less than global" ambiguous. > > Does it mean "my intranet", "my intranet plus a VPN to company > > X", "a VPN to company X but not my intranet", "my VPNs to > > companies X and Y plus a secure subset of my intranet", or a > > combinatorial number of similar choices? > > I would be open to accept the idea that it means "my intranet" and that > we would need to use global addresses for the rest of the scenarios you > mentioned. It's not as flexible as > it-could-be-if-we-lived-in-a-perfect-world, but will address the bulk of > the needs. > > Michel. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
