Tony,
So even though the routing research group has not come up with a solution that simultaneously addresses all three of these in the last 10 years of focused work, the IPv6 WG will promise to come up with a solution quickly if we just deprecate the only viable approach we know of first. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the herd mentality is so willing to buy the promise of a better way rather than face reality, but it still does.
Please stop twisting and misinterpreting everything that anyone posts to the list who disagrees with you. The above is NOT what I said.
I _said_ that we really want these things, but they are mutually exclusive, therefore:
> So, network administrators will be forced to choose between > global-routability and provider-independence for their > internal addressing. And, as we've learned in IPv4, there > are a fairly large number of people who will choose > provider-independence over global-routability.
They are forced to choose in IPv4 because it is too difficult to assign multiple addresses to an interface. That issue goes away with IPv6, so the 'forced to choose' concept is coming from those who don't want to deal with the issues raised.
Tony, allowing an interface to have two addresses:
- One that is globally routable and globally accessible, and
- One that is stable and local,is _exactly_ what I am proposing.
However, I am proposing that there is _no reason_ why the stable, local addresses have to be ambiguous.
Margaret
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
