[Dropped the IESG...]
At 11:39 AM 8/26/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Agreed. No replacement is also a replacement. That said, I think there is a lot left to discuss on what to recommend for the cases that have been brought up.
I agree. There are a number of situations (disconnected sites, intermittently connected sites, etc.) where provider-allocated addressing is not a good method for address assignment.
We need to figure out how these networks should be addressed. Our solution(s) may (or may not) require various properties of "local addressing": a provider-independent address prefix, addresses that are defined to have limited routability, addresses with special autoconfiguration properties, etc.
Margaret
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
