Keith Moore wrote: > ... > (in other words, it's not reasonable to assume that a private network > is well-bounded
Like it or not, routing protocols actually do require that the boundaries of a network be well defined. > or that it doesn't interconnect with other networks > that do connect to the public network. As I said, all they have to do is coordinate the space. While it might be nice if they didn't have to worry about any possibility of collisions, their private use of space does not justify a public registry. Even if we created a public registry, who would pay for its maintenance, and what would be the rules for acquiring a site-id? We already have public registries struggling with these issues just to keep a relatively small number of SPs happy. How would that scale up to handle every possible side-id request, and garbage collection as the original requestor goes away? > and even if those networks > don't provide transit to the between the public network and private > network there may be apps that have to deal with addresses from both > types of networks) > > if you have enough bits for the site-id you can make the probability > of a conflict approach zero *provided* the site bits are randomly > chosen. but the easiest way to avoid conflicts is to make the > site-id globally unique, and there's no good reason to not do so. Yes there is, and it has everything to do with managing a large global database, and nothing to do with bit patterns as seen by an app. > > now if we really get PI space set up in such a way that any site > can get a unique chunk of PI space whether or not it is connected > to any public network, that would remove the need for unique SL > prefixes, and that would be fine with me. but while I'm glad > people are working on proposals to do that, I'm not holding my > breath waiting for it to happen. if we end up with both unique > SL addresses and PI addresses, that's not a horrible thing. The focus of my PI draft has been on multi-homing, but it could be expanded to cover the case of the globally unique range for a disconnected set of sites. This is not because I prefer it over making SL unique from a bit-pattern perspective, but from the operational perspective a global database for SL can't scale. > > but SL addresses without a site-id just cause more harm than good, > and they really need to be eliminated in favor of unique SL > addresses, unique PI addresses, or both. SL addresses without a globally unique site-id are only a problem if people expect them to work outside the context of a private network. I will agree that there is a need for a private address space that spans multiple sites within a private network, so we do need to remove the 'must be zero' restriction on those bits. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
