On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > I suspect that most people there, who voted for > > the elimination of site-locals, would still be > > favor of enabling the features that site-locals > > were intended to offer. Perhaps the majority > > position could be paraphrased as "against site-local, > > but sorry to see them go". > > I agree. I think there was a general understanding that we need to > provide the capabilities that SLs were supposed to provide, but to do so > in other ways. Agree absolutely. Erik made good points in SFO about desirable addressing properties for customer networks (e.g. stable addressing). That is one side of the issue. The ipng list should be identifying the scenarios where networks require addressing that would have otherwise have been supplied by site-locals, and present viable alternatives. For example, manets, intermittently connected networks, and community networks with partial yet varied uplinks. If these can be addressed (sic), then I think objections will diminuish. As a side-note, a fifth SL option was presented "out of the blue" in SFO, namely exclusive SL/global addressing (one or the other only), which, because it was rather a "broken" idea, I think perhaps added to the room sentiment that site-locals are broken (rightly or wrongly :) Tim