Subject: RE: Let's abolish scope [Re: Unicast scope field (was: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing)]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:36:53 -0700

On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> I think it does, because it makes "less than global" ambiguous.
> Does it mean "my intranet", "my intranet plus a VPN to company
> X", "a VPN to company X but not my intranet", "my VPNs to
> companies X and Y plus a secure subset of my intranet", or a
> combinatorial number of similar choices?

I would be open to accept the idea that it means "my intranet" and that
we would need to use global addresses for the rest of the scenarios you
mentioned. It's not as flexible as
it-could-be-if-we-lived-in-a-perfect-world, but will address the bulk of
the needs.

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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:52:12 +0200

Michel,

My bottom line on this, I think, is that this version of scope
has very limited use - it doesn't deal with the situations that
my services colleagues see every day, and it is not something that
middleware can make any use of. At most, it allows for some defaults
in firewall rules and address selection rules, but those can be
set up on well-known prefixes just as easily as on a scope value.

  Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK