In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>
>>
>> I think this is the key point. Regardless of the possible benefits of
>> site-local addresses -- and I'm willing to withhold judgment on that
>> point -- we don't know in detail how to make them work. At a minimum,
>> we need changes in routing and the DNS. We may need new global
>> namespaces as well, with all that implies for co-ordination and
>> administrative overhead.
>
> Well we already have a global managed namespace. The
> scopename would be just be a name within the namespace
> already delegated to you.
>
> host1.example.com. SA <SL-IPV6-address> site1.example.com.
> host1.example.com. SA <SL-IPV6-address> site2.example.com.
> host1.example.com. SA <global-IPV6-address> .
>
> host2.example.com. SA <SL-IPV6-address> site2.example.com.
> host2.example.com. SA <global-IPV6-address> .
>
> host3.example.com. SA <SL-IPV6-address> site1.example.com.
> host3.example.com. SA <global-IPV6-address> .
>
> Here host2.example.com and host3.example.com would have to
> communicate using global addresses while host1.example.com
> and host2.example.com could choose to use there site2.example.com
> SL address and host1.example.com and host3.example.com could
> choose to use there site1.example.com SL address.
But some people have suggested that the main benefit of site-local
addresses is for disconnected sites, which presumably don't have domain
names...
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
