Brian, > Brian E Carpenter > 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.
Although could agree with some of this, you are missing the point. This would be if we had a PI solution, which we don't. In the lack of it, the benefits of perverting the Hinden/Haberman draft into PI and do whatever works for private addresses (such as hijacking) are _greatly_ superior to using the Hinden/Haberman draft for private addresses and have no PI and no multihoming solution. No matter how infortunate, it is scope that could lesser the risk of this happening, which is why making SLs unambiguous was possible, and also what makes the Hinden/Haberman draft such a peril as the only significant difference is that now these addresses have a global scope. _IF_ we had a deployed solution that would bring the advantages of PI, _then_ the Hinden/Haberman draft would be a no-brainer. I am not opposed to abolishing scope, but we need to solve the PI issue first. If it never crossed your mind, abolishing scope and slightly revamping SLs would make their deprecation un-necessary as all the problems associated with them would be gone. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
