> OK, this is going to go around endlessly, so please re-read my original > message where I said that there are some who simply do not agree that > local > addressing is needed -- I know that is your position and I respect it. I > also said that I firmly disagree and suggest that we have plenty of > scenarios that suggest otherwise. Lets not waste further bits on this > argument.
Hans, You have clearly stated your point. You, and several others, believe that local addressing is not needed. However, I don't believe that the working group should heed your opposition. Something is needed if a significant part of the community believes they need it; unanimity is definitely not required, and even majority is not required. In the case in point, there is a significant constituency who believes that they need a replacement for site local addresses, and that "draft-hinden" is a reasonable way to obtain this replacement. You are indeed free to not use such addresses and never deploy them within the networks that you manage, but that does not change the needs of others. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
