paf
On tisdag, aug 5, 2003, at 03:09 Europe/Stockholm, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I would like to hear from the working group on how we should proceed. I
think the choices are:
A) Deprecate Site-Local addresses independently from having an alternative
solution available. This would mean that the working group should treat
the deprecation, and requirements and solution documents outlined above
independently from each other. If there was no consensus on an alternative
a replacement would not happen.
my choice is (A). as we have discussed at SF (and probably prior
meetings) site-local address has a lot of issues with it, for instance,
- ambiguous address
- can't be used referrals across site zones, and there's no way to
determine if a site-local address is from out-of-site or not
(because of ambiguity)
- mandates hosts to know the topology, which we should not allow/mandate
- site-border router issues, and (lack of) routing protocol
functionality to handle it
therefore sooner deprecation is better.
itojun
PS: each of the items are summary of discussions we had before, to my ears,
don't try to comment on each items please. the point of the email is
the very first sentence, and that's all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
