Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

To: <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
Subject: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:32:32 -0500
Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu, mrw at windriver.com, ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <058a01c2f4c9$037af9b0$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030327200316.0523b5e8@mail.windriver.com> <058a01c2f4c9$037af9b0$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> And in Atlanta we all agreed to take elimination off the list, and it
> has not been discussed since.

what's changed is that we had a chance to look at various ways of limiting
usage of SL, and found that none of them would make SLs tolerable.

References:
- RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
  - From: Margaret Wasserman
- RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
  - From: Tony Hain

Prev by Date: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Next by Date: Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Previous by thread: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)
Next by thread: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.