Pekka, > Pekka Savola wrote: > 1. Shouldn't we first see the requirements for site-local > replacement (and other issues) and not jump straight to the > requirements for local addressing?
Do you mean that the Hain/Templin draft is too generic, or not specific enough? >> 3.1 -- "Network managers have stated, and historical >> experience has shown, that there is a need for addresses >> that do not require public registration." > ==> there is no supporting evidence of this expect vague > statements. Please be more explicit as I don't see how we > can take this for given. Maybe you are too young to remember but network administrators have hijacked addresses for ages, which is one of the reasons that eventually led to RFC1597. What makes you believe that the reasons they did it in the past do not exist anymore? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
