Michel, I don't recall that we ever promised to support scoping of unicast addresses. RFC 1752 refers to the scope field in multicast addresses, which I certainly don't propose to abolish.
I don't see why the lack of explicit scope for IPv6 unicast is an inhibitor. Satisfying the Hain/Templin requirements is necessary, but that is orthogonal. Brian Michel Py wrote: > > Brian, > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > I think we'd be better off to simply forget > > about address scope. > > At last, the real question. > > Well, this could be both the best thing we could do for IPv6 and the > worst thing we could do for IPv6. > > It would be the best thing we could do for IPv6 because for numerous > reasons it would simplify it and could allow for a faster deployment. > > It would be the worst thing we could do for IPv6 because that would be a > tacit admission that we have failed to deliver on the promises for IPv6, > and are settling for IPv6 being IPv4 with more bits. > > This could mean the death of IPv6 as enhancements in NATs are way > cheaper than building a native v6 internet, and as long as the v4 > internet is not on the verge of collapse (which is going to take some > years at best) IPv6 would not take off. > > There are three things that could make IPv6 take off: > 1) A killer app, which we still have to see. > > 2) The v4 address space _really_ getting full, which will eventually > happen but we simply don't know when (as the time frame keeps being > pushed) and certainly not tomorrow morning. > > 3) IPv6 being a lot more powerful than IPv4. > > > Well, here's my attempt at becoming flame bait :-) > > This was a sound question to ask. However, what you propose is giving up > on item 3) above, and since there is nothing we can to rush the > invention of a hypothetical killer app it actually jeopardizes the > deployment of IPv6. > > When time for 2) is around the corner, IPv6 will be deployed no matter > what, quick and dirty. Instead of settling for what we can deliver > today, why don't we use the remaining time to try to make it better? > Might not produce anything else, but at least we would have tried until > the last minute. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
