Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:46:53 -0400
From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| okay, I now understand your use case for SLs, though I still think it
| would probably be better to solve that problem by assigning a unique,
| non-publically-routable prefix to each site that asks for one.
Yes, that would be an alternative - and is much the same as
SL's with site ID's embedded.
Aside from the much touted (but really silly) objection of "who would
assign them" this method has other problems.
Either way (SL's with ID's, or non-routable globals) gets rid of the
scoping problem. No need to pass scopes around any more - but they're
still needed for LL's.
They also make routing easier.
The global addr model though makes apps lifes more difficult, in that
it is then no longer immediately obvious which addresses are stable,
and which are not. Given two addresses, which should I use if I want
a stable connection (assuming I somehow know that both work) ?
Globals also lack the "you can't possibly route that, everyone and his
dog owns the same address" argument that immediately shoots down
anyone trying to make the thing routable, and stable.
None of this is easy - there is no easy answer (or not that has been
proposed so far).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
