> Why is this useful for the unnecessary complication of the > flexibility?
For example it allows users flexibility in managing their IDs; decide what to expose externally vs. internally; create applications utilizing the vast pool of permanent unique identifiers; change providers, etc. > I would think that net admins don't want users to have > this flexibility and why would they care? Need a definition of the user, e.g. a large enterprise is an end user to SP. The enterprise may want the above flexibility. SP on their side would focus on capacity and traffic. --- On Wed, 8/20/08, Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering... > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 6:18 PM > > ILNP specifically calls for 64-bits ID for a node. What > I was > > suggesting is a range that can be any (64, 86, etc) > based on the set > > prefix length. > > Also end users can put that ID anywhere they see fit: > node, > > interface, port, application etc. If necessary it will > be an > > architectural decision to recommend where exactly to > put the ID. > > Why is this useful for the unnecessary complication of the > flexibility? > > I would think that net admins don't want users to have > this > flexibility and why would they care? > > Dino > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message > text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & > ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
