At 05:16 PM 8/21/2003, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
"Worse than NAT". Coming from you that must be pretty bad.....
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?
I see it another way. It seems to me that in cases where there are no routers, globally assigned prefixes, DNS, servers, etc., if nodes can discover each others IPv6 link-local addresses and use them for communications, this is a good thing. Especially when the alternative is for them to not communicate at all. I think this is a very legitimate use of IPv6 link-local addresses and do not think we should restrict it (even if we could). Note that I don't think it is trivial to do this and that there are no issues with the transition between this environment and a global environment. Nor do I think we should put IPv6 link-local address in the global DNS.
My other point was that IPv6 suffers from only adding value when everyone else has it and there is global IPv6 connectivity. I think it is a good thing if people find good uses for IPv6 with needing everyone else to have it first. I think this will have the effect of getting us to global IPv6 faster. It give people local incentive to use it. I think this is a good thing.
Bob
p.s. Please accept that we may disagree about this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
