> Jim Bound wrote: > What was my point of compromise for SLs in that past > discussion before this wise WG consensus deprecated > them? Ok age happens I will respond :--). PUT > CONTROLS ON THEM SO THEY DON'T EVER LEAVE A SITE AND > AGREE TO THE RULES FOR THE SITE BORDER ROUTERS. But > nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......folks wanted to > leave that open "just in case" ergo support for > free-for-all (I was never sure just in case for what) > and I will stop there. > There are times we need to leave things open ended > SLs or LLs are not one of them in my opinion.
I agree, but this does not justify using a cure that is worse than the disease. SLs are bad, what are we getting insead? IPv6 swamp and NAT. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
