In your previous mail you wrote:
The IPv6 working group chairs reading of the mailing list discussion
regarding removing site-local addresses from the IPv6 architecture is that
there is not a consensus to make this change.
From the email discussion we also believe there is a
the introduction of scoped addresses into the Internet architecture
has caused several problems for apps which are difficult to solve .
even if there's not consensus to do away with them entirely,
we need to understand how to minimize the damage, and that probably
means minimizing the use
Would it make sense to add the issues that limited-scoped addresses
create for applications as issues to the scoped address architecture?
maybe, but it's an issue for both v4 and v6, and it ties in with
issues related to limited-duration addresses. it's kind of a mess,
actually, both in that
Keith,
I don't agree that the Default Address Selection document should
be published without change, and I don't think we have consensus on
that at all. though perhaps the sections on SL are okay.
(not sure what you meant here by no change)
Could you please be clear on what you mean above?
Hi Bob Tim,
What I would like to see come out of this long discussion is simply some text
in the in progress Node Requirements document that specifies how much
of the scoped address architecture MUST be implemented and that
that text would say that the rules specified in Draves'
The IPv6 working group chairs reading of the mailing list discussion
regarding removing site-local addresses from the IPv6 architecture is that
there is not a consensus to make this change.
From the email discussion we also believe there is a consensus to not
require IPv6 implementations to
Bob Hinden wrote:
The IPv6 working group chairs reading of the mailing list
discussion [snip]
I am in agreement with the chair's reading of this. Time to move on.
Michel.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home
I agree that there's probably not consensus to deprecate SL,
but I think we should consider finding ways to discourage its use,
and to remove the burden from apps of having to support it specially.
I don't agree that the Default Address Selection document should
be published without change, and
Keith,
At 09:29 AM 6/21/2002, Keith Moore wrote:
I agree that there's probably not consensus to deprecate SL,
but I think we should consider finding ways to discourage its use,
and to remove the burden from apps of having to support it specially.
I don't agree that the Default Address Selection
the introduction of scoped addresses into the Internet architecture
has caused several problems for apps which are difficult to solve .
even if there's not consensus to do away with them entirely,
we need to understand how to minimize the damage, and that probably
means minimizing the use of
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
in other words, I think we need to seriously question some of the assumptions
behind the scoped addressing architecture, and I'm not confident that
completing the work on the Scoped Address Architecture document will
accomplish that.
Can you enumerate what
Can you enumerate what assumptions you are concerned about? That would
give us the authors a better understanding of your concerns.
I've about decided to write up an I-D before 9 AM Monday on this topic,
but here's the capsule summary:
the basic problem with limited-scope addresses is that
At 05:21 PM 6/21/02 , Keith Moore wrote:
Can you enumerate what assumptions you are concerned about? That would
give us the authors a better understanding of your concerns.
I've about decided to write up an I-D before 9 AM Monday on this topic,
but here's the capsule summary:
It would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
