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

Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal




[Dropped the IESG...]

At 11:39 AM 8/26/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>Agreed. No replacement is also a replacement. That said, I think there is 
>a lot left to discuss on what to recommend for the cases that have been 
>brought up.

I agree.  There are a number of situations (disconnected sites,
intermittently connected sites, etc.) where provider-allocated
addressing is not a good method for address assignment.

We need to figure out how these networks should be addressed.
Our solution(s) may (or may not) require various properties of
"local addressing":  a provider-independent address prefix,
addresses that are defined to have limited routability,
addresses with special autoconfiguration properties, etc.

Margaret



--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------