> kre wrote: > (Note: I think I'm one of comparatively few people who actually > support site-id's in SL addresses).
If I understand correctly, what you are advocating for is SL addresses that are globally unique (by using a mechanism such as embedding the ASN in the higher bits). Therefore, when two networks merge, they don't have to renumber one of them (which is what happens today when two networks using 192.168.0.0/16 merge). There is one thing that worries me about such a scheme: it does in fact give a PI address to everybody. It is to be feared that people using these addresses will make arrangements with their upstreams to have these leaked in the global table. Money talks. It will not be possible to technically prevent this, as the very purpose of site ids is to exchange routing info about SL addresses between two sites. In no time, this scheme could be extended to the entire Internet. What I don't like with side-ids in SL addresses is not that that they give a unique address to everyone, which is great; but that there is no control over how far the routing of these can go except "don't do it". I support having no site-ids in SL addresses. The fact that fec0::1 is pretty much like 192.168.1.1, called re-usability I think, is the only guarantee that SL addresses would not be perverted into unaggregatable PI. As I mentioned before, PA addresses alone are not a satisfactory solution. There is a need for some independent, globally unique addresses. I think that these addresses must be subject to a specific protocol, not a free-for-all ride. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
