Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 16:59:21 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <20030419165921.782a8353.moore@cs.utk.edu>
| 1918 addresses were created because there was a need for isolated
| networks to be able to get address space, and having them pick space
| at random was believed to be problematic.
Yes, and nothing has changed.
If anything, the demand now is greater than it was when 1918 addresses
were first created, as addresses now are much less stable - 1918 addresses
also fill the role of stable addressing for internal site use.
| what has changed is that we now have experience with RFC 1918, and we
| know now that it is far more of a mess than was anticipated.
Which explains some of the cleanups.
But even ignoring that, you cannot just wish the demand away. One way
or another, the users are going to meet their demands. If that means
just picking space at random again, that's what they'll do (which will
likely mean that they'll need to use NAT as well, which with SL they don't).
If you (and/or the WG as a whole) can come up with a replacement that is
better than site local, and meets the objectives, that's fine. Until then
don't destroy what we have now, which works now (as in, in in day to day use
now).
kre