Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:This appears to me the opposite of what is generally done within the
What I'm trying to say is that we need to first figure out
where we need local-use applications -- and, as an interim
feature, maybe reword the current draft so that it's
apparent which current perceived local-use scenarios
require specific requirements.
IETF. First we write requirements then we look at specific scenarios,
not the opposite.
My point exactly! Why are we writing requirements for _local addressing_, and not writing requirements to solve the problems which people perceive exist in IPv6 after the elimination of site-locals?!!?!
That is what the hain/templin draft is about! The title of the draft is:
"Addressing Requirements for Local Communications within Sites"
The title articulates the problem space which is perceived as requiring new solutions after the elimination of site-locals; it is not pre-judging what those solutions should be. If you think any of the requirements or scenarios in the document are invalid and/or leaning too strongly in favor of a particular solution alternative, please send specific comments to that effect. (I saw that you did provide some pointed comments earlier; thanks for those.)
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. In case it is getting lost in the noise, the document ID is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-01.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
