Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
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"
Is the title supposed to be a pun? I.e., do you mean "to find solutions to requirements for local communications .." or "finding requirements for addressing mechanism to solve this problem" ?
The title says simply that there will be a need for "local communications within sites" and this need raises "addressing requirements" - nothing more. I have no idea how you could twist the meaning in the way you have; the english language isn't *that* ambiguous!
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
