Subject: RE: IPv6 site-locals... end of story...

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:01:41 -0800

|    On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:49:26PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
|    > There's not that much more to say.  The chairs ARE going 
|    to poll the
|    > WG via the mailing list, but assuming that the 
|    statistics aren't too
|    > wildly different, it will be hard to overcome the 5:1 
|    ratio that we
|    > saw today.
|    
|    I'm aware of the headaches that site locals cause, but...
|    What are we going to do about the equivalent of rfc1918 
|    addresses in ipv6?
|    As much as we also might find this semantically/architectually
|    unclean, NATs aren't going to go away, nor is private 
|    internal addressing.

I fully realize that.  However, I believe that anything that
effectively sanctions rfc1918 basically is equivalent to 
admitting that NAT is here to stay.  And if one accepts that,
the need for IPv6 is nil.  Ergo, we must see if we can make
IPv6 work without this.

Next protocol please...  ;-)

Tony

p.s. Yes, this is an educational exercise for some people, but
it seems like we have been working at this for a decade now
and folks are not inclined to learn except by making the
mistakes.  So let's make 'em and get on with it.
_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Scott Michel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:51:43 -0800

> mistakes.  So let's make 'em and get on with it.

To quote one of my favorite high school teachers, "We learn by making better 
mistakes." Let's hope that's the case with this evolution.

-scooter

---

From: Scott Michel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:51:43 -0800

-scooter