Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:26:21 -0400
From: Steve Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Ripping site-locals out of the specs will not prevent folks who perceive
| the need for stable addresses (e.g., for internal use) from allocating them,
| especially given that ~7/8 of the IPv6 address space is held in reserve.
Yes, exactly.
If site locals were made to go away, they'd simply be re-invented by
sites all over the place, in totally un-coordinated ways, and the same
pressures that led to reserving the 1918 address space will just reappear.
That was really: "people are doing this ('borrowing' address space) anyway,
we might as well tell them some numbers to use that will cause less problems
than simply using arbitrary ones".
Unless / until we come up with some way of avoiding even the possibility that
sites will ever need to renumber (which I think is almost the same as asking
for a guarantee that the routing people can route a 2^48 flat address space)
then stable addresses for internal communications are a *requirement* for
many sites, and whether that's achieved by simply "borrowing" some random
prefix and using it forever, or whether it is done using "fec0::/10" is
largely irrelevant - it will be done anyway.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
