Thus spake "Ofer Inbar" <cos@aaaaa.org> > but I have seen nothing other than Tony's assertions that would make > me think this dicussion is about any of those things. It puzzles me that > he keeps repeating them. > > Tony, *why* do you think this discussion is about reachability? > > Everyone else: Do any of you believe that's what this is about, aside > from Tony's assertions and peoples responses to those assertions? Well, I think there was some confusion while we sorted out exactly what "scope" means, as one camp seems to define it as a reachability problem while the other camp defines it as an identity problem. Any time you pass locators across a "scope" boundary, using either definition above, things break. I think we all agree on that, so the exact definition of "scope" doesn't seem so important. There is a related issue, which was until recently confused with the first, and that is whether ambiguous addresses should be allowed/encouraged for local use. It seems to be established that this is a bad idea, but unless there is a workable mechanism to establish unique addresses for all networks _without relying on topology_, I don't see the concept going away. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking