=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote: | |> -When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in |> the |> way of solving the routing/identifier problem? |> |> -When (and how) did all the other reasons that have been advanced to |> stymie |> any work on the routing/identifier problem evaporate? | |<rant> | From my point of view, as an apps person, people stopped looking at |these alternatives when they found out they can force applications to |have clue about routing topologies, force applications to use this clue |to do clever source address selections, and more people started |thinking Site Local was not only a solution to this, but also the magic |pixie-dust which solves other problems as well. |</rant>
I understand why you might think that (especially given the recent discussions) but if you review the archives for the past few years I think you will see that site-locals did not play a significant role in discouraging the development of real routing/identifier solutions. Frankly I find it really disturbing that the issues are being coupled this way. Dan Lanciani [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------