Subject: RE: Requirements for Limited-Scope Unicast Addressing in IPv6

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:16:26 -0700

> Fred Templin wrote:
> True, this is a -00 document,

And an attempt to legitimize the deprecation by trying to put the horse
back in front of the car, the problem is that you still don't have a
horse.

This document is further proof that there is nothing to replace
site-locals, which is the reason there is no ground to deprecate them in
the first place.

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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:24:49 -0700

You make my point; you are attempting to cast this document as
something that its not. Look at the requirements and scenarios,
then bring your candidate schemes - 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.

Fred
[email-masked]

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