Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| But the real problem was renumbering. That
| still hasn't gone away.
No, and that's why we need these things - so when renumbering happens,
our internal addresses (the ones I use to mount my filesystems from
the fileserver, etc, which stay in use for months or years between
reboots) don't alter.
| Uh, except you can't talk to them anyway because
| all you have is a non-globally-routable
| address, right?
No, not at all. That was what happened for v4, but here we're
talking about an address you have in addition to your globally
reachable address, not instead of it.
| Except neither does IETF, it seems. There's
| no such thing as an long term stable
| globally routable prefix.
No, but we're talking about SL here, nothing globally
routable about it at all. And while a globally routable
permanent static address would be nice to have, at the
minute that doesn't look to be feasible. Again, that's
exactly why we (I anyway) want SL addresses.
| If you want a
| globally routable address, you have to deal
| with renumbering, regardless of whether you
| got your "private" prefix from RFC 1918, or the
| back of an old Ultrix manual.
Sure, but that other address remains working just fine, for all
the internal connections - no need to change it, ever. That is,
provided it is an address that no-one else will ever be using for
their global communications, which is another way of saying,
providing it is a reserved address.
| I'm not sure which one I mean, honestly, and am
| too lazy to look it up. However, it seems that
| if you have any v6 prefix which maps the
| v4 space, you automatically get net 10's for
| the bargain, and all of the hassles they
| entail,
Yes, you do. That's 2002:0A00::/24
But 2002::/16 will remain allocated only as long as the v4 global
routing system remains to make it feasible, then it will vanish back
to unallocated space, as it would no longer serve any function
(it will probably take a long time before it gets reused, but
eventually I'd expect it to be). Then 2002:0axx:... will just
be someone else's global address.
| Keeping "private" addresses
| as a v4 artifact -- which are still accessible
| to v6 if you are so inclined -- may be a way
| out of this...
But aside from being a different bit pattern than fec0::/10
what's the difference supposed to be? (Ignoring for now that
2002::/16 will not always be available for the purpose).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
