> > It's from my reading of the discussion (on the mailing list and in the > meetings) and the fact that the working group decided to accept > <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> as a working group document in > Vienna.
I didn't know there were such side effects associated with accepting that as a WG document. My assumption was that it was a fine thing to work on possible replacements and to understand the cost/benefit tradeoffs of such replacements. But presumably the WG should be capable to still say "we don't like any of them". Your logic seems to preclude such a conclusion. FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will make the local addressing concerns go away. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
