> > of course, just because there are implementations of SL and that > > customers > > have bought those implementations doesn't mean that > widespread use of > > SLs > > is something that IETF should endorse. > > For what it's worth I agree. If we now specify a RFC1918 > like structure > for IPv6, we will be faced with people doing NAT like > structures - for > whatever reason, and a lot of what is considered the drive > for IPv6 is > gone.
=> Why is it gone ? Not everyone wants NATs and for those who do, deprecating SL addresses will not help. It will just make their (Network admins) behaviour less predictable. > > I have long argued that IPv6 only contribution to networking is a > increase in addressing space - there is nothing I can do on > IPv6 that I > can't do on IPv4. => Yes there is. The address size itself allows to do things that you can't do with v4. Check out the SEND WG for example or MIPv6, or address autoconf.... A lot of people have then told me that IPv6 would > help with peer-to-peer communications. With SL this is > gone. => Obviously, if you choose to use SL for a disconnected network you're not interested in P2P on a global level. If you choose to use SL with globally routable addresses in the same network, you can get P2P. Even if > there might be reasons for a site to not need globally unique > addresses, the problem is that at some point in the future > that device > will be on the net, and instead of renumbering, someone > will do IPv6 > NAT and the peer-to-peer/end-to-end models are gone. I agree that I > don't think the installed base is a problem. If the small > installations > we have now is a problem, the problem of renumbering these > sites with > global addresses is not going to become smaller. > > History will repeat it self. => i don't know why some people try to resist existing facts. If you can't change it accept it and try to make the best out of it, i.e. write a BCP to tell people about the consequences of certain actions. Any attempt to change the world by deprecating SLs is an exercise in futility. Much better to educate people and hope that in time we will reduce the number of myths on the net. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------