> Bound, Jim wrote: > > I came here and asked a simple question. Look what happened. > > In industry this would be a no brainer and most would take > > your view is my opinion. Don't use these for applications. > > That is one opinion. In reality industry will build what > customers are paying for. If your customers are not demanding > network applications that work without any infrastructure, > you will not need to support this.
I know a few of those too and it will happen today with state at the user level and command line interface yes. With the local-unicast-global address problem is gone too and LLs are not required. They can be annouced on ad hoc net (my definition previously stated) per the draft too without a router via NAs and NSs by user override command line interface which is backup to all addrconf essentially in IPv6, but then ND, DAD, NUD, et al can be used to support them as viable addresses avoiding the multilink problem of LLs. > > > But it has turned into another absurd avoidance of basic > > principles because folks have their heals dug in on for some reason. > > Look carefully before you speak. From another perspective, > those who are insisting that IPv6 not be capable of anything > more than the limitations of IPv4 are the ones with their > heals dug in. To the contrary. These proponents want to use LLs for what they were mean't to do very well in an IPv6 network and avoid their limitations where appropriate. Not just support a free-for-all with mission critical operational networks out of convenience. /jim > > Tony > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
