>> ....but how on earth did we end up in this discussion? From what I >> remember of the voting in Atlanta we had consensus for a limited >> version of site-locals...not creating a separate address structure? > > as I recall, we had consensus for limiting site-locals, > as well as widespread support for the idea that PI globals were needed. > > it's not an either-or.
if my memory serves me right we had consensus on limiting site-locals somewhat, i.e not pushing multi-site support. we also had consensus that _working_ on non-routable global PI addresses sounded like an interesting idea. until we see some real proposals on the table, there is nothing to reach consensus about with regards to GUPIs. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
