[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6



Loses to the proposal that best satisfies the requirements. If
you don't like the requirements, then suggest some of your
own.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-lsareqts-00.txt

Michel Py wrote:

>>bring RFC 3513 site-locals as a candidate scheme if you'd like,
>>but it loses based on ambiguity and non-portability (to name
>>just two) straight out of the barrel.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Loses to what? Since when requirements equates a solution?
>Requirements are wishful thinking, no more. We don't throw away a
>published standard with running code from multiple vendors in exchange
>for the promise that _maybe_ someone will be able to produce a
>replacement that meets the requirements.
>
>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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------