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@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:33 AM > To: alh-ietf@tndh.net; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.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@tndh.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@sunroof.eng.sun.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >