Brian, > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Quite correct. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that three > levels of scope (link, local, global) capture much of anything > useful. If we were talking about scope between say 0 and 255, > where 0 means link, 255 means global, and 1..254 are user > defined, we might be able to define something of value to > enterprise network operators.
Sounds good, but do you think that moving the scope definition to the user will bring any breakthrough in getting this new scoped architecture doc out of the door though? I have not thought much about it but the initial reaction is that it would make things even worse. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
