IMHO, what need to happen is the following:
-1. Make an in-depth study of the consequences of introducing
addresses with different ranges.
How would this different from the material that has been presented already in the SL debate? The whole anti-site-local argument is based around the consequences of a scoped addressing architecture that people don't like.
-2. Realize that if the issue at stake here has more to do with getting addresses
than with their actual scope/range, something probably can be
done working with the registries.
I don't think that is true. The local-ness of these addresses avoids the issue of having to scalably route the PI space. I can't see significant differences in process between globally unique local address allocation and a globally unique PI address allocation.
- aidan
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
