Unfortuneately Michel is 100% correct. This is an issue already I see in real deployment analysis.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:42 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: AD response to Site-Local Appeal > > > Brian, > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Personally, I'd advise customers who believe they need > local addresses > > to continue using FEC0 until the addressing architecture is revised > > and products catch up. > > Customers don't like incertitude when designing networks and > will delay IPv6 deployment until this is settled. > > Michel. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
