Keith, That is not going to happen. The market will ignore such silliness.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:17 PM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Some IPv6LL operational experience > > > I strongly disagree that this practice adds value to IPv6. > IMHO it has the potential to do a great deal of harm. It is > even worse that NAT. > > Did we go to all of that trouble to deprecate SL only to find > that people will now insist that LLs are generally usable by apps? > > If we're going to make IPv6 even less predictable and less > functional than IPv4, why did we bother? > > Keith > > > Thanks for describing this. The local discovery and communication > > problem > > is important. I also think this is an important approach > because it uses > > IPv6 in a local environment in a way that adds value > without the need for > > it to be available globally. It adds value without the > need for everyone > > else to do it first. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
