> I've been staring at this for three days, and I think the > answer (in the current state of the BGP art) is "yes", or > at least the risk that it is "yes" is unacceptably high. > Just stuffing some probably-unique bits into a SL is not > going to generate aggregatable addresses; it's going to > generate entropy in the routing table.
the premise has to be that SL + site-ids are NOT going to get advertised to the public routing tables. if there's not a mechanism for preventing this now, we need to invent one. but that's not a reason to force or even encourage sites to use non-unique prefixes, especially when SLs without site-ids cause problems for distributed applications. SLs with site-ids might be acceptable, but we really need to get rid of SLs without site-ids. > True, but let's not make things even worse in the meantime, > by inventing non-aggregatable pseudo-global local addresses. > We don't need them; we've got aggregatable real global addresses, > and we can perfectly well use them for the sort of bilateral > private routing setups that Keith mentioned. please explain how my private network can get a aggregatable real global address when it doesn't connect to the public internet. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
