Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Fine by me. It's just that dealing with scopes seems to be the problem that
|> most people are complaining about rather than the existence of the addresses
|> themselves.
|
|I cannot understand those people complaining about scopes.
They are complainin
On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 09:34, Markku Savela wrote:
>
> > Fine by me. It's just that dealing with scopes seems to be the problem that
> > most people are complaining about rather than the existence of the addresses
> > themselves.
>
> I cannot understand those people complaining about scopes. We w
> (a) addresses that are global
> (b) addresses that are local, with limited reach (firewalled or
> whatever)
Of course, having only (a) would be ideal. But, this would work only
if the whole address allocation is turned upside down:
- you don't get addresses from your ISP, everyone/e
> Fine by me. It's just that dealing with scopes seems to be the problem that
> most people are complaining about rather than the existence of the addresses
> themselves.
I cannot understand those people complaining about scopes. We will
have
(a) addresses that are global
(b) addresses that
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing
> > "local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
>
> Not quite.
Depends on what you want. (Perhaps we should try to formulate these
better first, but it's more int
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> I'm all in favor of unique site locals,
|> but I don't see how they eliminate the need to deal with scopes.
|
|I'm not sure why we'd have to be able to kill scopes.
Fine by me. It's just that dealing with scopes seems to be the problem that
most peopl
> I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing
> "local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
Not quite. You should get the slides of Rob Austein presentation to the
working group. We must really separate two issues, reachability and
ambiguity. It is very easy t
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> |It appears to me that we have a very obvious and clear solution here, not
> |even requiring any IANA/IESG action to get kickstarted.
>
> A solution to which problem exactly?
Look at Christian Huitema's mail today. The only thing this can't provide
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing
|"local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
[...]
|It appears to me that we have a very obvious and clear solution here, not
|even requiring any IANA/IESG action to get ki
Hello,
I'm assuming that for the intents and purposes of replacing
"local" site-locals, "nearly unique" site-locals would be enough.
(Actually, the change would be quite nice if implemented under fec0::/10
-- not many changes at all.)
I'd like to focus a bit on how to generate these "nearly un
10 matches
Mail list logo
