Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Alain Durand wrote: > > 100% agreed. Still, we have to pick a default. My point is that I'd > > rather like the default case to be that apps that require global > > addresses don't have anything special to do to work. > > Agree here. > > Another alternative way to proceed might be to leave the scope of local > addresses "global". > > And those sites who wish to change the preferences, could either pick any > one of them, or insert a custom entry in the policy label table for the > local addresses, causing communication between local-local be preferred > except for certain special cases. >
The problem here is that the notion of scope as a set of embedded circles is simply wrong. Because of VPNs and hosting centers we will have "prongs" of enterprise networks extending into physical sites of other enterprises in an overlapping pattern. There is no simple scoping rule that can describe this, so there is no applicable default in such cases. But default preference = global seems reasonable to me. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
