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. Brian P.S. I fully concur that the renumbering document is needed too. See author list of RFC 1900. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
