At 10:00 PM 8/21/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
This is a clear capability & advantage that IPv6 brings over IPv4. The only thing holding it back is the obstinate views of those who don't want to make the scenarios work. After-all they don't work in IPv4, so they must not be really needed, right???
Tony - (assuming "they" == IPv6LL) can you explain why IPv6LL will work while "they don't work in IPv4"? My experience with IPv4LL has been uniformly bad; I've never intentionally used an IPv4LL address and the automatic assignment of an IPv4LL address has on several (many?) occasions silently interfered with my ability to assign a non-LL address and use greater internet connectivity. I will admit ignorance and am happy to hear success stories about IPv4LL.
I don't know that some folks "don't want to make the scenario work". I don't understand the advantage to IPv6LL from the scenario you described. We can assign IPv4LL addresses today in a one-link, no router ad-hoc network. But we have to enter the addresses manually and those addresses get in the way when full Internet connectivity becomes available. What's different with IPv6LL?
- Ralph
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
