On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > | It's > | just easier for people to use a global address block (even if we define > | that address block to be 3ffe:eff3::/32 or whatever) even with these > | "internal needs" (note: I believe there should be _something_ that does > | not require you to fill any kind of paperwork). > > Huh? What difference do you think that would make? We just define > fec0::/10 as a "global" address block, and we're done according to this > theory. That's absurd - the bit pattern used can't possibly be relevant. > What matters is whether or not there is some block of addresses that can > be arbitrarily simply "taken" and assigned for local use, and which won't > work for communication that isn't local (whatever definition of local has > been chosen to apply). > > If there is, then all the same issues remain - how to discover the address, > how to decide when to use it, how to prevent it leaking where it shouldn't, > etc - none of which is in the slightest impacted by the bit pattern chosen.
Bit pattern is not relevant of course (except how it is handled by "legacy" implementations, which is why I tossed 3ffe:eff3::/32 in the air). What I'd like is that there wouldn't need to be special handling for site-local addresses. If you really wanted to have Site Border Routers, you would just be shooting in your own foot (like with 10.0.0.0/8 etc. today). Implementation (and specification) simplicity.. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
