Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:44:17 -0400 > From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | I agree 100% with Micehls' point - assigning unique IDs > to sites for use in > | site-local addresses moves the site-local addresses into > a globally > | routable address space, with the additional feature that > those addresses > | are provider independent. > > Yes, as I've said - the proposals to stick IDs into SL addresses keeps > getting shot down. > > I'm not sure that I think a lot of an argument that goes > "well, someday > someone might misuse it, so we'd better not have it at all", > but that's > not important for now. > > What matters here, is that "global" addresses from a non > routable prefix > have all of the same problems (they are identical, other than the bit > pattern that makes up the prefix).
Maybe the way to solve this is to take the 'must be 0' bits and define them as 'locally administered' with a clear note that FE00::/8 will be blocked on the public net. This would allow sites that want the hassle of coordinating multiple private interconnects to do whatever they want (since they will anyway if the implementations allow it), without leaving any expectations that these are in any way globally unique. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
