Thank you, this was the only simple answer to the simple question.
For the followup question:
Do you believe that the IETF created the architectural concept of
addresses with a limited scope?
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:33 AM
To: alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net;
ipng(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: A simple question
just to provide a "simple" answer to a simple question:
NO - I do not agree with Keith's assertion as quoted.
YES - I agree with what I *believe* Keith wanted to say,
which is that
"introduction of *site-scoped* addresses causes far more
problems than it
solves".
I do NOT believe that introduction of link-local addresses
causes far more
problems than it solves.
My position on SL should be well known. I'll try to avoid
repeating the
rest of my arguments once again in this discussion tree.
Harald
--On fredag, april 18, 2003 15:12:54 -0700 Tony Hain
<alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
It doesn't solve all problems, but introduction of
scoped addresses causes far more problems than it solves.
I would like to understand how many people that voted YES on the
question of deprecating SL concur with Keith's assertion.
Tony
Note: I cc'd the IETF list to catch those who may have been in the
room in SF, but aren't on the IPv6 list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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(_at_)sunroof(_dot_)eng(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------