Michael Thomas wrote: > The problem is that this draft proceedes from the > premise that the answer is consing up limited > range addresses.
It is not intended to. It is trying to point out the requirements that network managers have. It uses examples where they have found limited range addresses meet the need to explain it for those who don't believe their requirements are real. > That's incorrect and not > helpful. We need to start by determining what the > *requirements* are, That is the point of the draft. Unfortunately some on this list want to argue that some requirements are not real, rather than accept that different situations create different requirements. Given that not everyone has expierenced every situation, the draft needs to provide enough context around a requirement so that others can see the issue. > and only then outline what the > range of solutions are, and what their problems > and possible consequences are. Until we can get an > consensus on what we need to do, and what the > engineering tradeoffs are, we will never come to > closure. Yes and no. There is no way to achieve a single optimal solution for the diverse set of requirements, so we know the outcome will be a compromise. Bob's draft (as did the others to randomize SL) meets the requirements in the current draft. > > That in a nutshell is why I have a problem with > the religiosity on both sides of this argument. My religion is that the deploying network manger is right, no matter what the IETF decides. If the IETF decides to provide tools to make deployment easy, that will be the path of least resistance. If not, the network manager will demand ad-hoc tools to get the job done. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
