Tony, > Tony Hain wrote: > Maybe the way to solve this is to take the 'must be 0' bits and > define them as 'locally administered'
That is what we were talking about: site IDs in SL addresses. > with a clear note that FE00::/8 will be blocked on the > public net. How can you guarantee this? If customers demand their ISPs to leak SL addresses because customers see SL as a PI address they can't get otherwise, ISPs will take the money at some point. It is a terrible responsibility to embed everyone-gets-one-PI-address in the addressing architecture. If the policy groups decide to give a PI address to everyone, their call not us me thinks. > 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. The way I see it is: If they are not globally unique, it serves no purpose. If they are, the fact that they will or will not be seen in the global routing table is a matter of money, not of addressing architecture. So, this can't happen now because there is too big of a temptation. How do we suppress the temptation? By providing people that want PI addresses and multihomers with an _aggregatable_ solution. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
